Comments: User was warned last week and the page was locked, as soon as the page lock expired he immediately comes back and begins his reverting without attempting to discuss[7]. In what to me appears to be an attempt to avoid the admin realizing he reverted an older edit rather than the more recent one. -GalatzTalk14:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
I get some a proove to show this
Evidence for incorporating SFRY team records in this article:
Claim: For FIBA records and statistics, Serbia is (indirectly) the only sucessor of SFRY. A successor's records should incorporate the records of succeeded teams.Source: Pages stating "Year of affiliation: 1936" for Serbia on FIBA World Championship 2006 site [4]Source: A FIBA news item stating "The Basketball Federation of Serbia will retain the place of the former Basketball Federation of Serbia and Montenegro as a FIBA member." [5]Source: Listings of "Participation" and "Achievements in FIBA competition" for Serbia (or Serbia&Montenegro) on FIBA World Championship 2006 site stating "SERBIA & MONTENEGRO (SCG) 13th appearance (3 consecutive)". [6](moved to #2.1)Claim: International news organizations represent Serbia as successor to the previous Yugoslavia federationsSource: Listing of international competition history of Serbia National Team on EuroBasket.com references complete statistics, starting at 1950 through 2006: [7]Source: InsideHoops.com combines records for SFR Yugoslavia 3 and 2 FR Yugoslavia championships (Total 5) [8]Source: InsideHoops.com article: "It was Yugoslavia (now known as Serbia & Montenegro) who defeated the USA Senior squad and eliminated it from medal contention at the 2002 FIBA World Championship..." [9]Source: CBC article: victory over defending champion Serbia and Montenegro.....which won the gold medal in 2002 as Yugoslavia, but only one player from that team was back to defend the title. [10]Source: Inq7 article: "The third world championship in 1959 was won by Brazil; the fourth in 1963, also won by Brazil; the fifth in 1967 by the Soviet Union; the sixth in 1970 by Yugoslavia; the seventh in 1974 by the Soviet Union; the eighth in 1978 by Yugoslavia; the ninth in 1982 by the Soviet Union; the 10th in 1986 by the US; the 11th in 1990 by Yugoslavia; the 12th in 1994 by the US; the 13th in 1998 by Yugoslavia; the 14th in 2002 by Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Yugoslavia); and the 15th in 2006 by Spain." [11]Source: ABC sport (.au) "In late matches, Spain ousted defending champion Serbia and Montenegro" [12]Source: Radio New Zealand "Spain beat defending champions Serbia and Montenegro" [13]— Precedingunsigned comment added byCrnibombarder (talk •contribs)17:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
[8] — Removed information from theJuanita Broaddrick article because her twitter account is "unverified".
[9] — Removed information again, falsely claiming that "Broaddrick's Twitter account authenticity has been called into question as it's unverified"
[10] — Repeating the false claim: "That may be so, but Broaddrick's Twitter account's verifiability has been specifically been called into question and cannot be confirmed at this time", even though the information was presented with reliable sources.
Comments: Yoshiman6464 insists on citing Tweets associated with an unverified Twitter account that is now being questioned for its authenticity.Partyclams (talk)02:37, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
16:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Religion */ Mother Teresa was 100% Albanian, her dad was an Albanian businessman and part of the league of Prizren, and yes she is again 100% albanian!!!"
Disruption. Longterm edit-warring adding picture of Mother Theresa to the article without consensus. Also removes pictures of Enver Hoja without consensus. Does not participate on talk. Will not stop. Editor has been blocked before for disruptive editing.Dr.K.18:01, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
[13] — This was the status quo when the article was page-protected from anon IPs. The disputed section at this point used theneutral subhead "Criticism"
Diffs of the user's reverts:
[14] — Revision as of 15:46, 8 October 2016, in which the editor changed the neutral term to the loaded "Racist behavior"
[15] — Revision as of 17:09, 8 October 2016, in which after a reversion to the status quo, "Criticism," he again used loaded, non-neutral language, "Racism controversy"
[18] — Latest revision as of 00:27, 9 October 2016. After a second, uninvolved editor restored the section subhead to the status quo "Criticism", Wash whites separately edit-warred again to make the subhead a slightly better yet still non-consensus version. Even without this fifth revert, however, he has defiantly made four — essentially saying the 3RR rule doesn't apply to himself. And asWP:CSECTION notes, "Criticism" is standard and "Controversy" should not be used except in rare situations that do not apply here. "Criticisms and controversies are two distinct concepts, and they should not be commingled."
In order not to do a fourth revert myself, I've left the article at his latest edit. He is behaving emotionally and uncivilly, with one edit-summary reading, "Fixed the grammar so the domineering princess can understand the sentence"[20]
It's worth noting that the emotional response came after he referred to my edit as "horrific" and also made threats against me. Even after I conceded to him about the grammar of the writing, he still decided to nitpick and report me because of the title of the section. He's just as emotional as anyone else, pursuing petty conflicts to the greatest lengths, all with a touch of condescension. —Wash whites separately (talk)17:59, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Here is my edit summary, which refered not to his edit or him as horrific, but to "horrific grammar" that as, phrased, called Chinese Americans "things":[21]. In any case, it doesn't mitigate his edit-warring. --Tenebrae (talk)18:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[28]
Comments:
User wants to add this sentence: "Others who embraced neo-psychedelia include Siouxsie and the Banshees [1] and The Glove [2]."
The issue here is one ofWP:ONUS andWP:LAUNDRYLIST. I placed{{elucidate}} next to the text andargued my case on talk page, writing thatindiscriminate namedrops of random artists is laundry list trivia that could potentially be stretched to infinity, and that the info is better located atList of neo-psychedelia artists. I suggested that if he wants those bands to be acknowledged, then he should find a source that discusses the subject asmore than a passing mention (i.e. something in the vein of "[X] was a major figure of neo-psychedelia who influenced many artists of the genre").
"Journalist David Stubbs remarked that Siouxsie and the Banshees's music in 1982 had got "neo-psychedelic flourishes" with "pan-like flutes" and "treated loops".[8] Critic Ira Robbins stated that The Glove integrated neo-psychedelic elements in their work in 1983.[9]
I have put another source and 2 very different sentences. Each time, I've changed and improved my edits. Iwp:STICKTOSOURCE, I usedwp:RSs and there is nowp:OR.
2) This report is bizarre because the plaintiff has done 4RR which I didn't.
Here's his 4RR, he should have never reported someone while doing this:
[29] 18:51, 5 October 2016 in which the plaintiff completely erased my first edit with 2 reliable sources
[30] 13:45, 6 October 2016 in which the plaintiff again reverted my edit
[31] 23:29, 6 October 2016 in which the plaintiff accepted one of the revious source and a new one while adding an abusive tag, which is his new tactics
08:25, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743357845 byNorthBySouthBaranof (talk)for the reason you just gave which can only serve to push bias here now I see your goal and you too are a bias pusher"
07:57, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743354420 byShearonink (talk)I have answered your question over on talk and as for the other it is not political it is a hack/theft/crime and only for that is it in the portal"
No violation – the reverts atBlockchain (database) are stale (October 6). Nothing at the other two articles needs admin attention. There are lots of people expressing opinions atTalk:Blockchain (database) which means that a good discussion should be possible. I hope you guys are aware you can make binding decisions using aWP:Request for comment. If instead you just continue to revert it won't have any useful results.EdJohnston (talk)16:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
16:31, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Please explain to me why it's so important that you have to be the leader of everyone?"
16:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "The information is wrong the US is not the leader of NATO and they never will be so I will continue to correct the wrong information being spread about NATO."
15:29, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "We are all leaders in this war not just the US, this is a global war against the terrorists and we all take part and no one is in charge of this war we are all against them. This article had incorrect information once again"
13:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "The US is not the only leading force in the war on terror it's not your war we are all fighting this war together."
11:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "Everyone plays a part the point of NATO is there is no leader all I'm doing is stating the fact, US is not in charge of NATO, the closest thing to a leader there is the Secretary General who is Norwegian not American."
11:50, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "This article wrongly states the US as leader of NATO, NATO is a joint coalition with no fixed leader so again I am fixing the article and removing the misinformed information that US is the leader of NATO."
Note: he was recently warned for making even a single revert to the article without getting concensus on talk first:[64].
— Explanation of the wording as instructed by subst:
As mentioned, Xenophrenic (and I) were warned for making even a single revert to the article before getting concensus on talk, at September 1:[65]. At that point I actually already had concensus:[66],[67].
I get clearer concensus again:[68],[69] and make a tiny change to the Amherst portion by adding two testimonies verified by all our sources and the words "a month before" which is obviously quite important:[70].
Now Xenophrenic reverts that, removing the testimonies for the millionth time and changes massive portions of the article completely chaotically and gets into an edit war with yet another editor, totaling 4 against him now. His argument is that it's aWP:NOTAVOTE. People are at arms about his behavior but it just keeps getting passed over.
Section of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[72]
Comments:
Declined – These diffs don't show a 3RR violation. If someone opened an RfC with specific statements we could get a reading on what wording actually has consensus. It is my hope that the two sides will eventually get tired of going in circles and will try following the steps ofWP:Dispute resolution.EdJohnston (talk)03:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Ed, of course these diffs do not show a 3RR violation. They don't even show disruptive edit warring on my part. What do the above diffs show in this malformed report? The diff of the "previous version reverted to" is just an unhelpful link to the current article. The diff to an "attempt to resolve the dispute" is instead just an unhelpful link to the whole article Talk page. The 4 "diffs of the user's reverts" are instead just article improvement edits, mostly consisting of uncontroversial new content and reliable sources. Any other Admin might assume good faith and mistake this grossly malformed report as merelynew user lack of competence, but Admin Ed Johnston should know better. Ed has been handling this matter for a while now, and knows this report is just the latest in a string of attempts by thesingle purpose Etsybetsy account to substitute baseless drama-board sanction requests in place of actual collaboration and discussion on article improvement.
While I appreciate Ed's efforts to appear impartial while addressing edit warring complaints here, I feel Ed's use of wording which paints both parties as equally culpable (i.e.; "It is my hope that the two sides will eventually get tired...") is unhelpful. Such language only encourages Etsybetsy's poor behavior. This AN3 report alleges that I reverted after being warned not to, but Ed is fully aware that it was actually Etsybetsy who reverted. Ed gave Etsy a chance,"there may still be time for you to undo your change, to avoid a block", which Etsy declined. Ed patiently listened to Etsy's faulty claim to consensus (which Etsy has again echoed just above in this report), and again Ed gave Etsy a chance,"Your above argument looks to be full of synthesis. I recommend you undo your contested change until a clear thread of support appears on the talk page." Again Etsy declined. Whether Ed then grew too irritated with the situation to continue, or simply lost track of it, Ed didn't comment further. I left Etsy's problematic, non-consensus edit in the article and patiently waited a full 2 weeks. With no further response from Etsy, or from Ed, I have resumed article improvement editing. Ed, you suggest (again) that we should be following the steps ofDispute Resolution, but you must know that cannot be done in a vacuum. Two to Tango, and all that. As you know, I took the initiative to open the Talk pagediscussion, which Etsy has abandoned in favor of revert-warring instead. I also offeredto initiate an RfC for Etsy, but that was rejected, with no alternative proposal offered by Etsy. Arbitration and Third Opinion steps aren't applicable here. I'd like to initiate aModerated Discussion, but that, too, is no longer applicable because there must first be significant discussion. The content Etsy is presentlyrevert warring out of the article (Canadian schools; Mandan tribes; copy editing) is new content being deleted without any discussion. Suggestions? Anyone?Xenophrenic (talk)21:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no potential problem with Atlas reverting edits. You made some rather poorly explained deletions, you were reverted. Then you added an explanation on the talk page. This is an ordinary content dispute following thebold, revert, discuss cycle.Someguy1221 (talk)21:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[73] User warned by the other user he engaged in an edit war. My warning is there as well. He was warned previously via edit summary.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments: User was warned several times, but refuses to provide reliable source to his edits. I've explained it already to him and he does not seem to understand. If he receives any kind of punishment, I'd recommend page protection as well. He just became a registered user, so he could go back again to unregistered edits and keep that situation going. Thanks.Gsfelipe94 (talk)04:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Dr Lecter I have legitimate argument and have provided a primary source to back myself up, while only receiving secondary sources / speculation as counter evidence. I have been warned several times to provide a source which I have done. My reporters have ignored the source, and continued reporting me for the same reason, while not providing a source of their own - making their reports illegitimate. I do not deserve to be punished— Precedingunsigned comment added byDr Lecter (talk •contribs)05:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe there's a clear "Interim champion: Jon Jones" below Daniel Cormier here:http://www.ufc.com/fighters. Sorry bud, you did not provide a single reliable source because there is none. I'm afraid you're completely wrong in this one.Gsfelipe94 (talk)05:39, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Bastun is making false accusations. I was merely correcting Ronan's ethnicity which is 'Irish-American', notIrish and American, her residence which is NYC, and some punctuation.Kates8722:48, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Couiros22 [contributions] has been systematically restoring individual country categories across many bird articles, despite this being against a previously established consensus, and removing categories he/she doesn't like, specificallyCategory:Birds of Europe. He/she just keeps reverting and has brokenWP:3RR at leastAleutian tern,history, probably others by now, and seems unwilling to discuss or stop this disruptiondiscussion. I'm too close to this to take admin action myself, and I'm reluctant to see any editor blocked, but there must be some way of getting this editor to engage with other editors and not just attempt to impose his/her own views without consensus. Apologies if I've not formatted this correctly, I don't think I've ever posted here beforeJimfbleak (talk)05:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
No breach of 3RR has yet occurred, as far as I can see. OnAleutian tern they reverted twice yesterday. That said, they are certainly not showing a good attitude to collaborative editing and if this pattern continues then sanctions may occur. I will leave a note on their talkpage and advise them to readWP:BRD. Can I also suggest that you (Jimfbleak) avoid using rollback to revert non-vandalism. (This revert required an edit summary.) — Martin(MSGJ · talk)08:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I have recently been updating geographical categories on many bird articles, mainly for the following reasons:
- Bird species are usually classified according to their geographical area by simply indicating the name of the continent(s) on which they are found (e.g. "Birds of Africa", "birds of North America" etc.) ; which can however be rather approximate and misleading and I think it would be wiser to include more refined geographical sub-categories in order to reflect the geographical area of repartition.
e.g. The stilt and the buff-headed sandpipers only occur in Alaska and Canada's far north; which is why I suggested to refine the classification data by replacing "Birds of North America" (very approximate and misleading, given it may suggest that the species occurs throughout the whole continent) by "Birds of Alaska" and "Birds of Canada" which would be much more precise and less misleading.
- Most academic bird list inventories generally indicate a bird's range of presence by only quoting the birds' breeding range (where they spend most of the year), the non-breeding range either mentioned separately or ignored (cf. IOC World Bird List). Likewise, I think only the breeding range should be taken into account on Wikipedia and that birds' wintering ranges could be categorized separately (e.g. "Wintering birds of Australia").
To elicit both examples, the Aleutian tern was up until now categorized as "Birds of North America" and "Birds of Europe" - yet according to every major ornithological reference, the species only occurs in northwestern coastal areas of the continent - and nearly none of them indicate its breeding presence in Europe throughout the year. Hence, wouldn't the terms "Birds of the Aleutian Islands" and "birds of Alaska" be a much more suitable and valid categorization?
At present, Jimfbleak seems unwilling to follow any further pragmatic discussion, deems that geographical subcategories (e.g. 'birds of Tibet', 'birds of Manchuria', 'birds of Alaska' etc.) as "unneeded" and has accused me of edit warring and having an « agenda »...
This board is not the place to discuss content issues. You can use the article's talk page, or for broad discussion try the relevant WikiProject. Jimfbleak may be aware of previous discussions where consensus was established. Consensus can change of course, but the onus is on you to demonstate this. — Martin(MSGJ · talk)11:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
12:23, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "You are edit-warring over an unsourced edit. Unsourced editsEncyclopedic content must be verifiable.""
11:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "No it isn't. It has to be in the source to be called "sourced". However the source never mention any "Islamic extremism motive"(which by the way is a religious belief anyway). Never mentioned in source even once."
11:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "No "Islamic extremism motive" is mentioned in sources, Islamic extremism is a religious belief. Regardless, it is entirely unsourced."
11:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "No "Islamic extremism motive" is mentioned in attacks, Islamic extremism is a religious belief. Regardless, it is entirely unsourced."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
The article is limited to 1rr however the user has reverted 2 or 3 times, They've been given an edit warring notice which has been ignored, Thanks –Davey2010Talk12:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I justleft a notice about the 1RR restriction. They haven't reverted since receiving the original warning. There's only been two reverts so far. The first was just removal of sources and the second was reverting him/herself.APKwhisper in my ear13:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I thought there was a notice but had no idea where to find it and don't really know what the best course of action is either, They did self rv but then self reverted straight after anyway so didn't think it was worth mentioning, Anyway they would've known about the 1rr because it's a massive box as soon as you edit so you can't exactly miss it but regardless if an admin believes this is non-actionable for now then I have no objections to that, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk13:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I didn't know that, but thanks for informing. But, multiple editors one after one have reverted me as well. Is that fair that you are able to tag-team against someone? I wasn't born yesterday and I'm not going to cower. Besides I've already started a discussion, no one responded. If you really care to "discuss", do discuss.Eichenwalde (talk)13:11, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Eichenwalde: - Go toTalk:November 2015 Paris attacks and read the archives (on the right hand side). You'll see this has been discussed. When multiple editors are reverting you, examine why they might be doing that instead of assuming it's a tag-team against you. Lastly, your tone seems very pointed. You're new here. Relax, be a little more friendly and people will probably respond to you a lot better. Cheers.APKwhisper in my ear13:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
No one's tag teaming - You've been reverted by 3 editors and carried on reverting anyway, It's great you've started a discussion but you should'e started it the moment you were reverted, The article isn't placed on 1RR for the sake of it - You ignored it and up until now was unwilling to discuss it and had it not been for this report you would'e carried on reverting. –Davey2010Talk13:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
That is exactly what is called tag-teaming - one after another reverting. I know this is a tactic. As I said, I wasn't born yesterday hoss. It seems the "editors" haven't used common sense and what Islamic extremism actually means. In fact they haven't even checked whether it's really sourced. NO SOURCE SAYS "Islamic extremism was a motive". And even the article makes itself clear that there was more than one motive. Therefore classifying it as a motive is contrary to reality and completely unsourced. Instead of telling me I'm pointed and to relax, do it yourself first and don't act like you own this site.Eichenwalde (talk)13:25, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
@Eichenwalde: - administrator's note: Please self-revert now that you understand that you're limited to a single revert. If you do not, you will be blocked for edit-warring. Self-reversion in such a situation is an acknowledgement that you're willing to work within community norms and a declaration of good faith, and will allow a more collegial discussion.Acroterion(talk)13:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Not happening. I don't want to edit-war. But I fear this is an obvious tactic on other's part to do what they wish to. Had the editors been not tag-teaming, I would have. But this is obviously a tag-team tactic.Eichenwalde (talk)13:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments: I came to this via an RFPP report. We have a slow-motion edit war here over the last week or so regarding a specific phrase. It's pretty cut and dried, but BoBoMisiu states on the article talk page that he'snot edit warring, but contributing content. After the 3RR warning, he reverted twice. A long-term editor like BoBoMisiu should know better.
I have a viewpoint about Freemasonry, so I decline to act myself. I'm bringing it here for another admin to review.Katietalk15:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours Pretty clear cut violation, reverts were performed after a warning, and the user is experienced. There is no excuse here.Vanamonde (talk)16:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
15:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Controversy and criticism */ restore "This article's Criticism or Controversy section may compromise the article's neutral point of view of the subject." Do not remove without consensus"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
We have always believed inWP:NPOV style of editing, but this user, I think, does not imply on it. He keeps on removing others' contributions showing the positive doings of the politician, although supported by reliable sources, and keeps on only contributing the negative ones, so that the general public, specially foreigners, can think of the politician as so bad. I think, he/she is one-sided and worthy of being punished, in accordance with theWikipedia:Five pillars. ~Manila's PogingJuan15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments: User keeps deleting and reverting content in violation of Verifiability/Removal_of_Uncited_Material... requested user instead post request citation of sources or constructively contribute instead user just keeps reverting and making hostile comments such ashttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Zlassiter&oldid=743572278
I'm not removing the same content, I was removing several different instences of unreferenced, somewhat promotional content and several different instences of SYNTH or OR. I had started a discussion on the article talk page, which the other editor did not respond to until after he templated me for edit warring, prior to even 2RR on any one piece of content. A third editor,Meters has also reverted the same SYNTH. If a block is forthcoming it should be for the other editor, who despite having been here for nearly two years, is not signing their comments.John from Idegon (talk)07:31, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I forgot to add four tildes after a comment... I don't believe thats a tannable offense but shows your hostility to me. If I get banned for forgetting four tildes, lets ban you for your typo on 'thanks'Zlassiter (talk)07:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict × 2)@John from Idegon:WP:3RR doesn't distinguish between removing the same or different material, it's just more than three distinct sets of reverting. If you did revert there one more time for any reason I'd have to block you, and I know some admins would say I should now.
@Zlassiter:This andthis would be counted as the same revert (sequential edits are counted as a single revert), not reverts 2 and 3. Whilethis can be counted as a revert, itcould be counted as a bold edit instead. Now, that decision could be consideredWP:Wikilawyering, but not nearly as bad a case of wikilawyering as citingthis essay to try to justify citing sources that don't actually say the things they're being cited for. In fact,that behavior andexpecting other people to get better sources are regarded as disruptive.WP:Verifiability (which is an policy representing both traditional and current site-wide consensus, not an essay representing the opinions of a few selected users from a decade ago) plainly states "Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed."
I'm inclined to just warn both of you to stop and especially warn Zlassiter to listen to John and Meters about sourcing and quitWP:OWNing the article like it's a source of income. Still, I'm not closing this myself because I could see how other admins might feel differently one way or another.Ian.thomson (talk)07:47, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Instead of just blanking material discuss it, help reword it so its more neutral... its hard to work on an article when its constantly being blanked over and over by the same user.Zlassiter (talk)07:51, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Also this should be looked at by admin....https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Meters#Recent conversation on a user's talk page regarding this. instead of trying to reach consensus subject seems to be reaching out to friends to get an AFD done on an article subject that clearly doesn't meet the requirements for deletion. Also some AGF violations.Zlassiter (talk)12:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
There's nothing untoward there. John from Idegon and I are both very active editors, and we have significant overlap on school articles, so we sometimes bounce ideas off of each other. That's why I initially thought his posting on my page had to do with the Crystal Springs high school article. He didn't ask me to look atKalamazoo Foundation for Excellence and he didn't raise the possibility of an AFD on my page until after the article showed up on my recent changes patrol and I had edited the article and commented on the talk page. As for the suggestion of aWP:CRYSTAL AFD, the article is a bit early, but I think it would certainly be argued that the subject is notable even if the plans don't work out. If it went to AFD it would probably either survive, or be userfied until the outcome of the plan is clarified.Meters (talk)21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
This is not a very clean 3RR case. The talk page thread was opened at 7:00 by John from Idegon, not Zlassiter, and at 7:05 Zlassiter responded but did not address the valid concerns of improperly supported material, OR and SYNTH. John from Idegon's last edit to the article was at 7:06. At 7:20 the 3RR case was opened, but not until 7:22 was John from Idegon given a 3RR warning. So, a 3RR case was opened without any attempt to discuss the issues, before the editor was warned, and despite the fact that the editor in question was attempting to discuss the issues and was no longer editing the article.Meters (talk)21:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Declined - This report is not in proper form and the above links are versions, not diffs. It is still unclear if there was any 3RR violation. Both Zlassiter and John from Idegon are advised to read the above statement by adminUser:Ian.thomson: "I'm inclined to just warn both of you to stop and especially warn Zlassiter to listen to John and Meters about sourcing and quit WP:OWNing the article like it's a source of income." John from Idegon was trying to enforce our article standards but may have got close to 3RR while doing so.EdJohnston (talk)00:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
17:40, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "Excuse me, if you want to have roster tables resembling to the other team-based sports, you might as well start setting up a discussion please onWT:OLY, or do it for the rest of the nations competing in field hockey. Thank you!"
18:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC) "For now, let's just be contented with the original template. If you're going to add a roster table similar to the other team-based sports, you should come up with a centralized discussion, and see if the other users would agree on your suggestion."
This user has ownership issues with Olympic related articles. They have clearly violated the 3RR rule, even after a warning was placed and a discussion started (which they have contributed too). The discussion has barely started and they have reverted back to their preferred version without any comments from other users. The user has also removed large chunks of information from other related templates[82] and[83]Sportsfan 1234 (talk)18:57, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Sportsfan 1234, I think that you do not read what I already explained in the edit summary, and then suddenly you just simply reverted my edits with so many negative, irrational remarks, followed by unpleasant administrative reports. Are you trying to instantly block and threaten me on Wikipedia? You should have read and understood my cases and explanations before you react. I already placed them on the talk pages for the said articles, includingWT:OLY. You didn't even give me enoughRESPECT when I'm fixing something. You kept on reverting my edits so many times, and you never stop. How long have you ever done the revert power on Wikipedia? Is this your regular habit? Sorry if I ask you too many questions, because I need to know about you situation on why do you have to do this every single time.Raymarcbadz (talk)19:14, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
03:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC) "Oh dear, the three-revert rule. Go ahead and ban me, fascists. It would be the proudest ban I ever received. Being outnumbered and being wrong are two very different things. You all are completely reprehensible."
03:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 743760875 byMuboshgu (talk) you Soros-funded sock puppets working overtime? I don't blame you after the bloodbath last night"
Note refs they brought in Talk. Been here before with Bigbaby23; they are an alt-med IDHT editor. This should be their fifth block for edit warring (seefour prior EW blocks). Please make this one long. For pete's sake.Jytdog (talk)07:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
I did not break the 3RR. My edits in the last 3 days were responding to reverts with comments about adding secondary sources. Which I did. Editor Jytdog has a long history of wikilawyering and abusing the system in order to bully newer editors like me. If some admin could warn him of his behavior it would be productive for the future of other editors too.Bigbaby23 (talk)08:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog stop being an ass, maybe take a vacation from editing for awhile. To the admins - the controversy in the article has reached a consensus. The issue is solved.Bigbaby23 (talk)08:51, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
20:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC) "This section/paragraph is not relevant in order for a reader to learn and understand the topic of "Flood Geology". It is simply an editor's POV. There is geological support and not ALL scientists consider it pseudoscience."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of72 hours. Note that this user has been blocked previously for edit warring on the same article.Bishonen |talk21:02, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[100]
Comments:
While I was changing the content because of logical reasons, the user keeps reverting the changes just saying something like "This is English Wikipedia, it should be this way", seemingly without even reading the article. Never addressed comments to my editing and the only time he showed up at the discussion page was after I asked him to do so in the comment to my reverse, but then he said all the same stuff and didn't follow the discussion.I'm sorry if I am reporting him too soon, just that was my first attempt to improve Wikipedia a little and it turned out to be pretty frustrating.129.49.101.14 (talk)21:29, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I was confused and didn't know what to do. First thing I've done was explaining my point in the "talk" section, but seeing nothing there and considering speed of reverses I thought that Jim is not going to show up there and then I tried just doing same thing he did and seeing what will come from it. It is not a good excuse, I agree. If I should be blocked - be that way. But I believe that experienced user should be more reasonable and mindful while 'assisting' others.
Also thanks for your feedback, that's nice to see that people keep an eye on what's going on, even if what they have to say is that I'm wrong.— Precedingunsigned comment added by129.49.101.14 (talk)21:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I think you're both wrong for edit warring, though I'm glad you're trying to discuss the matter at the talk page. I don't think any admin action needs to be taken at this point, but I'd ask both you andUser:Jim1138 (who has been here long enough he should have known better) to refrain from further edits to the article until the dispute is resolved. SeeWikipedia:Dispute resolution for guidance on what to do if you can't work this out with Jim but want to press the issue anyway.Someguy1221 (talk)22:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
19:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "Look at Wikipedia's Miss USA 2012 page, they have Olivia culpo listed as 5'6 with the same link I used as a source stating shes 5'5:"
19:18, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "That source stating shes 5'7 doesn't exist anymore. It's a broken link, therefore it isn't a source."
16:13, 10 October 2016 (UTC) "Changed her back to her real height, which is 5'5. She is not 5'7. Use pictures of her (without heels) and Nick Jonas as a source who is 5'7, she is at least 2 inches shorter than him. Even with heels, she is still shorter/same height as him."
The first edit in the list there might not obviously seem like a revert but yep,it is. While the identity change since doing this stuff two days ago might be an effort at gaming 3RR, they haven't reverted since I posted the warning.RunnyAmiga ※talk20:05, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Although they were kind enough to update the sourcethat source wasn't a reliable source, The IP may well be right but without the source to prove it it's all just Original research, Anyway they've been given ample opportunities to go to the talkpage and have ignored every chance, just my 2c anyway. –Davey2010Talk20:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP broke 3RR on 10 October, and the same person seems to have used two IPs. There is so far nothing on the talk page about her height; please discuss the issue there.EdJohnston (talk)17:52, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Warned for personal attacks and edit warring, which along with the warning byKailash29792 should hopefully get through to them. I am disinclined to block since this seems to have stopped several hours previously.Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)21:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments: User is edit warring to remove a source from the article. Three other editors have inserted the material, but he keeps removing it, saying it is subscription-only (it isWall Street Journal) so it is not an acceptable source. User is also edit-warring to add aSourceWatch source to the page, when the talk page consensus is against inclusion of thisWP:USERGENERATED source. Also note that this user was warned for edit-warring on this same articlelast month.Champaign Supernova (talk)01:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Response:
User:Champaign Supernova was first revertedhere for making edits that were already the topic of disagreement and discussiontalk here. Instead, the useredit warred here.User:Champaign Supernova was also asked to stop warring and engage in discussion on the talk pagehere andhere. But rather than engage in that discussion and consensus building - or risk 3RR for continued warring, the user preemptively; and without a warning, posted this notice on mytalk page. Before that, the user had been told at talk that theSourceWatch quote in the article does not violationWP:UGC, as was pointed outhere. But since the user didn't like that explanation, or the fact that the user's edits in the middle of discussion had violatedWP:CONSENSUS and were reverted because of it, now the user is forum shopping - instead of either discussing or consensus building.X4n6 (talk)02:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – 48 hours. This is now the second report of X4n6's edit warring on this article since 1 September. I closedthe previous one with a warning. X4n6's edits on October 12 and 13 clearly show a pattern of edit warring.EdJohnston (talk)05:04, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
16:43, 13 October 2016 (UTC) "The TOS says "...not designed to attract...under 13" and "If you do not agree...do not use...", which implies if you are under 13, you can't play Tetris. #COPPA"
Warned, explicitly stating that if they continue to edit war I will block them from editing without further warning. I am disinclined to block because I count only three reverts (two of them are back to back and technically count as one revert) and since it has been quiet for a few hours now. I have also watchlisted the page; feel free to ping me or another admin if they continue edit warring.Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)18:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
18:16, 13 October 2016 "(Removed. Changes that require sources. Some point the mistakes and lack of information.)"
09:11 9 October 2016 IP sock 2001:1c04:2902:2400:5479:88c6:88a6:a693 "(That map doesn't by far show all the land thet Ottomans controlled ever since then. For example northern yemen was also for a period of time under Ottoman rule. This map shows better what the total amount of land was they controlled)"
09:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC) "The abolition consensus is not in question. It is vandalism delete reliable information. Do not delete reliable information."
This list is not a list of newly added.User:Athenean The list has been removed for no reason and without reason. This is the first sweep.[108] Raised without justification. There were already today part of in of page. Raised without debate. The discussion here is not to add to list. He has lifted the warning message by unnecessary to say[109] . Irrelevant answers in the debate, although it has been given the necessary resources[110]--Gündoğdu (talk)18:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:section;
Comments:
Pease note on Talktheir initial dismissive response; theirsecond response where they mischaracterize their own edits and don't respond to issues of MEDMOS and OR, and add a personal attack, and thethird response, where they finally acknowledge the MEDMOS issue and yet (oddly dismissively) acknowledge their lack of competence in MEDMOS (yet they are edit warring insisting their edits are correct...); heck they are just edit warring.
Please also note strange response to EW noticehere.
Page protected: I count only three reverts? I'm not quite sure what the first two edits are reverting. Regardless, talk page discussion is ongoing, so best to let that continue.Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)19:02, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
meh, blatantly aggressive editing by the subject of this filing with lack of engagement on Talk. But the article won't be disrupted anymore, so that is at least good. Thanks for taking action.Jytdog (talk)19:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
The "strange response" was perplexity as to what edit war was supposed to be happening before I was aware anyone was even aware of my edits. Check the timestamp. As to "lack of engagement on Talk", how much more verbiage do you want me to produce on the Talk page? All in all, I am singularly unimpressed with Jytdog's attitude & approach.Valerius Tygart (talk)19:35, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments: I am here due to several reversions between myself and Lemongirl942, ongoing since Monday. In regard to my two reverts, both were done on the grounds that the editor did not, in either edit description or on the BLP talk page, address the guideline backing the initial deletion, and did not provide a valid counterargument perWP:AAEW, particularlyWP:FIXED andWP:DISCUSSED.
I am not as experienced in this forum as with RfC, and would like to request neutral and experienced arbitration to determine the next step. Thank you for your attention on this matter.Yvarta (talk)18:30, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow, 24 hours after this happened? And "ongoing", seriously? Apparently the filer doesn't understandWP:BRD and is alsoignoring prior consensus. Despite multiple RFCs, they started an RFC again and it didn't go their way. So now they decided to try and edit the article itself citing that apparently it is an egregious BLP violation (despite the RFC). I reverted back to the long term statusquo version and warned and yet they continued despite my efforts todiscuss here. As noted previously byNomoskedasticity, I am increasingly seeing this as an attempt to game the system. The filer should be warned not to POV push on the article. --Lemongirl942 (talk)21:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be a frivolous report. Judging by discussion on the talk pagelink, the filer did not have consensus for the removal of the material in question.K.e.coffman (talk)22:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
BOOMERANG applies, Discussion is still ongoing and so therefore there is no consensus for the removal, LG even tried to explain to YV and it seems to no avail, The only person who should be blocked for edit warring is YV. –Davey2010Talk22:41, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
If an administrator feels I have acted out of place and should be sanctioned, I will be happy to accept a block and learn from my mistakes. I would like to note that several of the editors above have been actively involved in the RfC under contention, with very strong opinions. I am aware my action is controversial, but I will stand strong behind my edit unless I see evidence I acted out of line, and that the guideline I have cited does not apply.Yvarta (talk)21:42, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[119],[120]
Comments: The last 3RR violation was yesterday, but the user is continuing to edit-war against consensus, despite being warned both on their user talk page and the article talk page. —Granger (talk·contribs)00:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Page protected I protectedLiberal and Progressive Muslim movements, which has an ongoing edit war. The diffs you show above are exempt perWP:3RRNO, asArtoxx is a confirmed sock. Still,MehrdadFR, please engage in discussionfirst and editsecond when editing in contentious areas or where good-faith editors have disagreed with your edits.WP:BRD is a good method of ensuring your edits have consensus. Youare edit warring on several articles, and if you continue doing so, you will be blocked. Let's not get that far, alright? If you believe someone is socking, Wikipedia won't fall apart in the few days it takes for you to find a resolution atWP:SPI, and you can revert after a determination of sockpuppetry has been made if necessary. ~Rob13Talk02:07, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Mr Dingley has been busy changing the format of this article to the way he thinks it ought to be. He has repeatedly changed the format of the references against the wishes of Deathlibrarian and DMorpheus2, that is against consenses of other article editors. He has in the past regularly abused and edit warred DMorpheus2 in the article ofChristie suspension, seehere.
Mr Dingley has a big ego and gives no space for other editors. He should be stopped now.
He also makes this article a "British Article".[125] This is not a British arrticle it is a German article.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] He has not replied, just edit war and revert me.
Comments: G'day, sorry, I'm not seeing the 3RR violation here. At best there are two reversions from Andy and to be honest they seem to be sparked by your own reversions. I think you are potentially misunderstanding 3RR and also misinterpreting Andy's edit in relation to the British English tag. Indeed, it seems a valid option (as would US English) given that there is no such thing as "German English" variation. Nevertheless, given that the formatting change was reverted, initiating a discussion probably would have been the better option (on Andy's part) after this revert:[126]. I note though, that you could have also started the discussion on the article's talk page if you disagree so strongly with the change and to be honest, I do not believe that you have made a valid attempt at resolving the dispute before posting here (unless you can provide a proper diff of you doing so). Regards,AustralianRupert (talk)04:40, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on IP talk page:[138],[139],[140]
Comments: Persistent addition of unsourced material to two articles despite escalating warnings and without a response other than clearing their talk page. --Worldbruce (talk)11:11, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments: User was banned for 3 days for the same thing last week and is now back doing the exact same edit warring on the exact same article. -GalatzTalk14:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments: This specific user also have conflict of interest for this subject as they have been in contact with the subject through Twitter and possibly email and I have evidence of that if an admin wants to look at that which can be shared privately. Moreover, this user is also an SPA on Christine Fair. He was edit-warring on the same page over a month ago and was given an edit-warring notice, he stopped edit-warring but came back after a month and started same thing over again. This is a clear attempt to game the system. I am pretty sure he will go low profile after this report and then come back and disrupt the page again. He needs to understand that the article cannot be tailored to subject's wishes. Wikipedia is an independent medium and we allow or disallow the content based on our own policies and not what the subject wants.Sheriff |☎ 911 |13:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
17:30, 14 October 2016 (UTC) "/* Smear campaign */ add content about smear campaign against Gary Hart as context - content copies from Gary Hart wiki article"
17:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744349969 byRrburke (talk) invalid deletion - the content merely provides wiki links to "smear campaign" wiki article -"
17:12, 14 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744347922 byStrongjam (talk) inappropriate reasons for removing content - no research; merely adding wiki links to other wiki articles"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[155]
Comments:
The editor also went to a page I created back in June and tagged it as an advertisement with no legitimate grounds. The page is [Horton Plaza Park].Emikey-34 (talk)23:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:My talk
Comments:
I'm closing this with no action, Mlpearc. The edit warring warning was not given until after the final revert, and previous warnings were inaccurate. You continually accused Randy in both edit summaries and talk page messages of adding content that was unsourced, or only cited an unreliable source. These accusations are, in fact, false. You characterize YouTube as an unreliable source, but if you had followed the link, you would have found a video of Jesse Ventura being interviewed by Joe Rogan, backing up precisely the content Randy has been adding. In this case YouTube is merely a repository and convenience link for an interview that actually happened between those two individuals. If you want to argue against inclusion of this content on some other grounds, fine, but I'm going to count incorrect warnings as if the user was never warned at all.Someguy1221 (talk)00:42, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: For what it's worth, I rarely attempt to discuss edit wars on articles' talk pages both because they're mostly behavior issues and because I'm insulted by the patronizing hidden text ("You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you?") here. Here's the discussion that matters:User talk:Ontheroad111#October 2016
Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP has broken 3RR. Though some of the information he is trying to add could be correct, it needs to be cited to a source in the article text.EdJohnston (talk)01:24, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Editor has continued to try to remove voting data, change photos without consensus, and change how the subject's name is presented. Has been warned about edit warring, about the specific changes. Has not responded to posts on user's and article's talk pages.Nat Gertler (talk)23:39, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[174]
Comments: Request to have this user blocked. This appears to be the latest episode of an ongoing issue related to the sockpuppet problem that re-occurs on theWrocław andPoland articles, for months now. This particular user once blocked creates a new account and goes back to edit warring, ignoring repeated requests to start a discussion first. The reoccurring hallmark of this user is his focus on the Wrocław and Poland related articles, such as here:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WKS Śląsk Wrocław/Archive
If you look at this user's contribution page[175] you'll find the focus on the Wroclaw and Poland topics, as with the past blocked accounts. --E-960 (talk)15:21, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours since the disruption is ongoing. However, issues with sockpuppetry elsewhere.E-960: please open an SPI and add evidence to that page: if such evidence is not available, then accusations of socking are not appropriate.Vanamonde (talk)17:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[180]
Comments: Janthana has chosen to engage in some weird edit war, telling me that I'm "back at it again," when my only attempt here is to clean up an obvious BLP violation, or at least ask that the information be properly cited. I realize that I too am guilty on 3RR, though I believe my reverts fall under the BLP violation exemption. Janthana appears clearly engaged in WP:NOTHERE conduct with a needless edit war that isn't even over content, but rather some weird personal grudge. Note that Janthana's only edits to this page are from 2013 (unless sock purppetry is involved, a very distinct possibility), and pops up yesterday engaging in accusatory conduct. Thanks for your attention to this matter.Mystic Technocrat (talk)15:05, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
This report isStale. Although both of you have engaged in repeated reverts,@Janthana: has edit-warred to add poorly sourced content, which is a BLP violation. They are thereforeWarned that further reverts may be met with a block.Vanamonde (talk)17:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute onarticle user talk page:[188]
Comments: Theattempt to discuss the issue ended withShellwood removing the message from her or his talk page andcopying it to mine with a particularly amusing edit summary ("next time provide evidence, dont go cry to admin, you know nothing about shwish law and history"). She or he reverted my first edit, which was explained, with no explanation at all. Subsequent reverts labelled my edits mere vandalism. She or he also referred to my attempt to discuss the issue asvandalism "by princess Surtsicna". I feel that I am either dealing with a child or a troll. Needless to say, citing Wikipedia guidelines did not help at all.Surtsicna (talk)06:38, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
It is you against everyone else again, concerning the royalties and their titles they are all mentioned in several other articles. Edit wars you lost.[189][190]We cant change laws in country just to suit your edits.Read the Swedish act of succession and see how royalties are addressed what surnames they got.Shellwood (talk)10:49, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
WhilstShellwood in this case is right in the matter concerned, his/her behaviour is really bad. Take these discussions in a civilised manner on a talk page(for example onSurtsicna's talk page, heading "Swedish Royalty"), without personal attacks and accusations of vandalism (we are talking about a difference of style here, not vandalism) and don't remove traces/discussions of what others are writing to you. --Marbe166 (talk)11:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
You both are out of line. You both have violated the 3RR on that particular article. And you both need to work this thing out. However from what I can see user Surtsicna seems to be the one that is mostly combative. Like this nom for example, just because you both can not agree to have a discussion at the articles talk page, but instead uses the revert button as a play toy. Work it out at the Princess talk page. Quite weird though that Surtsicna reports Shellwood for breaking the 3RR while Surtsicna himself has violated the same rule. Please.BabbaQ (talk)13:35, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that the article in question has been protected for four days because of the revert war between both the users in question here.BabbaQ (talk)13:51, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Please also kindly note that the issue (whetherof Sweden should be part of the bold lede of the article or not) is not only applicable to Princess Sofia's article, the same removal has been done bySurtsicna to the other articles on members of the Swedish Royal Family, that is why I initiated the discussion on Surtsicna's talk page. Please resolve the issue there, thanks. --Marbe166 (talk)14:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Warned The page has been protected, so a block here would be punitive. Although the behavior of both parties is sub-par,both of you are edit-warring, with absolutely no excuse. Therefore,both of you are warned that further edit-warring on that page or other pages might be met with a block, with or without a 3RR violation.@Shellwood andSurtsicna: to make sure you see this.Vanamonde (talk)17:21, 16 October 2016 (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.
This user delete my message from his talk page even it is the first message between us and i dont delete his message from my talk page even he threaten me with block even i dont violate any rule and i dont have talk or contact with him befor. He doesntassume good faith. Please resolve his offensive behaviour---مصعب (talk)14:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
This is nonsense. There is no edit warring, I merely left a note on his talk page. No one is obligated -- unless direct by an admin, I guess, although I have yet to hear of such a direction -- to keep anything on his or her talkpage. I simply have nothing more to say toمصعب.Quis separabit?14:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
i dont know the best place to put this message. But users should not remove messages from their talk pages exept if it is violte policyes but my message is a very normal message. Is that a good behaviour to not accept messages and deleting it from your talk page? Then delet your talk page and dont recive any message from any one--مصعب (talk)15:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
مصعب Please readWP:OWNTALK where it states "users may freely remove comments fromtheir own talk pages" - also note that talk pagesare not an "all or nothing" situation.Rms125a@hotmail.com has done nothing wrong so this thread will be closed as "no action".MarnetteD|Talk15:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
I had removed this assuming no admin intervention was needed and plus it was malformed however I was reverted but just wanted to add I've left a note on the editors talkpage[191], Thanks, –Davey2010Talk15:54, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
There is no edit-warring here whatsoever.@مصعب: Although it may not be the politest thing to do, RMS is perfectly within their rights to remove any message you might post: and reporting that removal here is not going to achieve anything. I suggest you direct your energiesto making useful contributions elsewhere. I have closed this discussion: please do not edit it further. I see no point in deleting it. Regards,Vanamonde (talk)17:25, 16 October 2016 (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.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[199]
Comments:
User has a history of disruption and vandalism (article blanking, article-talk blanking, removal of others' posts), even despite repeated user-talk warnings:[200],[201],[202],[203],[204],[205], etc.
Attempts to discuss the matter of theClaire de Lune files on the article talk page have gone ignored/unheeded or have gotten deleted by the user.Softlavender (talk)00:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Considering he is now repeatedly removing this entire report, and considering the wall-of-text gibberish he posts on article talk pages, this could be a returning blocked or LTA editor (although I have no idea who).Softlavender (talk)01:10, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
He was really telling lies and let lies existing on wikipedia, which was unacceptable.I want to totally disscuss this case again:I have found there is no Claude Debussy' Moonlight on that article. My team in reality have trained me from educational perspectives for tens more years about this melody. Then, I have added one upon. the basic impressionism points have all been respected especially the techniques and skills, which was also tens more'years' summary. However, someone didn't care about commons' voices - yeah, it was softlavender. He didn't make any communications with me, then delected it, but puting one even worse version, which depending on my career responsibilities, I have very clear stated which senconds losing impressionism and Debussy's style. In order to protect his hornour and show some good manners to get peace, I put one much advanced version in talk place. However, he, again, said lots of urgly words and abusive language without respecting the facts and delecting even the version in Talk. Talk place is for commons and users' free talks. It was him who let walk place lose freedom. How could he argue my false?— Precedingunsigned comment added byJason M. C., Han (talk •contribs)01:32, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – 3 days. Edit warring and self-promotion atClaude Debussy and repeated removal of a report about himself from WP:AN3. Jason's post above suggests some difficulty with English. He should avoid getting into disputes on the English Wikipedia if he finds that he can't explain his views in an understandable way.EdJohnston (talk)01:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
[212] - "source falsification- on page 432 there is no information that Sabirs were Turks" - on page 432 is referred to where the Sabirs lived, while in other references, the whole revision, categories is more than clear they were not "nomadic" tribes, but "Turkic tribes".
[213] - "source falsification - source 3, page 200-201 - there is no info that Sabirs came from Siberia" - in all three references is clearly stated they were Turkic tribes who came from Western Siberia.
[214] - "source 10 - no connection between Khazars and Sabirs is mentioned; fringe theory pushing" - on page 440 is referred to the etymology of the ethnonym, while in other references to both the etymology and their semantic connection to theKhazars ethnonym.
[215] - "source falsification source 16 does not contain mention of Sabirs at all on page 279" - said that only because could not read the page online, what the...? If anything else, there two other references.
Major
[216] - "Rv edits pushing fringe connection Sabirs-Khazars; source falsifications and obvious not understanding history of nomads; Khazars originated from Heptalites, they came to Europe 150 years later" - the connection between Sabirs and Khazars is not fringe, there was no falsification, misunderstanding, there several theories on the Khazars origin.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see above
Comments:The arguments are clearly false. It is intentionally disruptive, but I don't understand the IP's reasoning. It is just stupid. Can the IP be checked if it is related to sock-puppets byUser:PavelStaykov? My talk page has been recently attacked, could be a related troll.--Crovata (talk)23:17, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
02:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 744726592 byZero0000 (talk)Then I'll just move it down. I had originally put it as the second sentence. Personally I don't care where it is positioned, so long as it's in"
User:JoetheMoe25 has already been blocked byBoing! said Zebedee for personal attacks and harassment, and that is the only thing preventing them from receiving an edit-warring block from me. Therefore, JoetheMoe25 isWarned thatany further edit-warring may be met with a block, whether or not a violation of 3RR is involved.Vanamonde (talk)17:49, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
User:117.199.86.130 reported by User:JoetheMoe25 reported by User:Wikimandia (Result:protected for 3 days)
IP is reverting all changes from the battle, which BEGAN today. He bizarrely deems today's updates (after the assault action began) unimportant. Article has since been split off (see talk page) into other article,Battle of Mosul (2016), and he is continuously reverting to previous version that removes all links to the split off article etc. I already reverted him several times but he will not allow new information on this page. Single purpose IP with no talk page.—МандичкаYO 😜11:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
07:05, 17 October 2016 (UTC) "This admin needs to recuse himself for applying mere opinion. He's threatening me arbitrarily and w/o reaching consensus. There was no admin process reached for this edit, nor any final consensus on colors. I have appealed to other admins for unfair use"
I saw their conversation with Rob on Rob's talk page. They obviously have no interest in discussing the matter on why their version is incorrect and just want to keep edit warring. You're trying to keep colors in compliance, so you're fine. They're not, and if they're not going to understand, then a temporary block is definitely needed to hopefully get the point across.Amaury (talk |contribs)15:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Result:User:Jamesmiko is warned for edit warring. The article has been placed under three days of full protection byUser:Ymblanter. Per the discussion atUser talk:BU Rob13#Atlanta United FC,User:Jamesmiko seems to be determined to ignore the mandate ofMOS:CONTRAST when choosing colors for table headers. He did break 3RR while trying to enforce his own choice of colors. Regardless of the binding status of the CONTRAST guideline, we do enforce theWP:Edit warring rules here. If Jamesmiko continues to revert against consensus when protection expires he may be blocked.EdJohnston (talk)16:30, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
According toWikipedia:Protection policy #Content disputes, "administrators normally protect the current version, except where the current version contains content that clearly violates content policies" The version protected violates our accessibility policy, specificallyWP:COLOUR. Please don't force our visually impaired readers to suffer three more days of this nonsense; changeAtlanta United FC to a version that complies withWCAG AAA standard. Thanks --RexxS (talk)19:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Yup. This user is just a troll, and IJBall and myselfvery strongly suspect they're a sock puppet, but we—or, rather, IJBall—can't really pinpoint who they're a sock puppet of.Amaury (talk |contribs)21:02, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
[234](corrected after another user pointed out it was inputed correctly)
The user then proceeded to follow me to a different article and begins to immediately revert my edits there several times! Clearly he's engaging inWP:WIKIHOUNDING
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[240]
Comments:
The user is a classic case ofWP:POINT. The warning above was the first of many, and I plead with him to either (A) cease the edit war and work things out with us, or (B) seek arbitration if he felt like he was being treated unfairly.
However, he promptly deleted any warning out of denial, most likely hoping to cover it the violation, trying to mislead admins by suggesting he was just 'removing vandalism' when there was none (he's clearly a seasoned editor who knows the difference between vandalism and contributions he doesn't agree with, etc):[241]
He also makes a personal threat in the subject-heading of one of his disruptive reverts, warning me:"You will learn to seek consensus for radical changes." If you look at my edit, I added a mere two words. My changes were FAR from 'radical'(whatever he meant by that).
This user has a history of edit-warring if you review his history carefully, He will often revert to million dollar phrases likeWP:BOLD orWP:EXCEPTIONAL without fully taking the time to see what those mean and erroneously applies them as justifications of his reverts in his edit wars in what appears to be an attempt to give the illusion of authority.
The edit warring from this user is chronic and, as a case in point, when the user finally moved on from the page once the damage was already done he resumed an old rivarly and edit war on this page, with this edit:
If you review the talk section of that page, in fact, you will find several instances of miserable editors accusing this disruptive user of edit warring and unilateral POV editing. Ironically, this user claims his edit war with me is over me daring to accuse a partisan political commentator of relying on conspiracy theories, claiming that to do so is outrageous, only for himself on this page to accuse his liberal-minded opponents as "Chomskyite conspiracy theorists".[242] Normally it wouldn't have enough merit by itself to mention here BUT considering that the editor is pontificating, it further calls his motives into question: I suspect this and other behaviors falls into cunning disruptive behavior by political editors guilty ofWP:GAMING using a combination of false accusations and edit warring under a thin-veil of self-righteousness.
In many cases, the editor is prone to belittle others and assume bad faith in the service of emotional, coercive disruptive editing aimed at curbing the work of others:
(just read the angry rant in the subject heading here)
(RV patronizing warning from hack editor. I have every right--indeed, obligation--to rollback a sockpuppet attack on a BLP; SPECIFICO has yet to engage the issues on talk, instead lecturing me about "edit wars." Come off it!)
If need be, I can list more examples if that will help but you get the gist.
Sorry for the longwindedness of this report! I only mention ALL of this since it helps to establish motive and state of mind, demonstrated a clear pattern and behavioral mindset of the disruptive editor as one who likes to pick fights and bully other editors over content. That said, feel free to make fun of my verbose and rambling nature! (my wife does)LOL
For my part in all of this, I confess that in trying to run around and plug holes in this proverbial dam I may have also inadvertently violated the 3RR rule, though I haven't counted to be sure. In that event, though, I'm willing to face the consequences. But it wasn't for lack of trying to do my part to 'civilly' discourage this editor from his edit war and protect the benign contributions of others. IN any case, if I too get a time out, I accept that.
Thanks to the admins for their time!
(Nice job of not informing me of this thread. It is significant that you failed to do so, because I'm genuinely surprised you would show your face here.) Oneshotofwhiskey should remember the old adage:People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. Oneshotofwhiskey openly boasts that he isWP:NOTHERE to build a neutral encyclopedia. In his own words, he is an activist intending to expose"the paranoia and most outrageous behaviors of convicted felon Dinesh D'Souza (who himself sees conspiracy theories everywhere and relies solely on emotional reasoning for his worldview)"; this mentality has unsurprisingly caused him to challenge basic tenets ofWP:BLP. For example, Oneshotofwhiskey replaced the previously accepted photo of D'Souza with hismugshot, and accused D'Souza of promoting"conspiracy theory" in the lead. Discussion on the talk page has yieldedno consensus in favor of labeling D'Souza a "convicted felon" or "conspiracy theorist"—in fact, despite Oneshotofwhiskey's suggestions to the contrary, he is essentially alone in advocating those changes. Whileothereditors have reverted Oneshotofwhiskey's most blatantly POV semantic changes, it is true that only I have attempted toWP:ROLLBACK his edits in their entirety. Yet I believe his POV-pushing is so extreme it constitutes vandalism to a BLP—and that my reverts of his attack onDinesh D'Souza are a justifiable response to said vandalism. Of course, Oneshotofwhiskey (andhis IP friend that shows up within minutes of him being reverted to reinstate his changes) has tried to muddy the issues beyond the seemingly blatant vandalism to the lead, arguing thathis unilateral deletion of thousands of bytes of material sourced to RS likeAlan Dershowitz elevates our conflict to a genuine content dispute. I disagree: He has no consensus to justify large-scale deletion of long-standing material, he has refused to answer my inquiries on talk (still waiting!), and hisassertion that Dershowitz's attributed statement constitutesoriginal research is at besta misunderstanding he has refused to correct—at worst an intentionally deceitful edit summary providing only a smokescreen for his real motivation.
The fourth diff in the first group is by a different editor. The second group of 4 diffs seems to be a clear 3RR violation.Zerotalk00:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
My bad user:Zero0000. I think I mistyped a character when I was forced to input that manually when my copy and paste failed on me (older computer, couldn't get the shortcut to work properly, etc.) Here WAS/IS the fourth edit I meant to include, etc.(corrected above) #[243]
Note that that "fourth revert" actually precedes the others, took place the day before, and was in response to somewhat different changes—some of which were discussed on the talk page and seem to have been resolved. Now, I certainly admit to violating 3RR at2016: Obama's America, although without realizing it at the time: After Oneshotofwhiskey made 10 edits, I deleted one word he added ("conspiracy"), and this word then became the subject an edit war when (to my surprise) he insisted his language was appropriate. He re-added the word three times, and I deleted it three more times—under circumstances such as that, I would argue both editors should be punished or neither. I also believe that describing a living person as a proponent of "conspiracy theory" in Wikipedia's neutral voice is a BLP violation unless very strong sources are provided—something Oneshotofwhiskey refused to do.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)01:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Update: Oneshotofwhiskey has recently been blocked for 31 hours due to socking. If hissockpuppet IP is counted, he restored the word "conspiracy" four times. So, it's up to the admins to decide whether and how much to punish the two of us for our 3RR violations: Perhaps 31 hours is punishment enough, or perhaps his block should be extended; whether or not I deserve any leniency due to the underlying circumstances is something I am obviously too biased to argue. But there is no doubt that, as a strict matter of fact, both Oneshotofwhiskey and myself reverted more than three times.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)01:52, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The socking accusation was overturned on appeal, based on "misunderstandings." I can provide documentation if necessary based on email correspondence if that is appropriate or required. I will leave it at that regarding this other editor making it an issue here and have good faith that he was operating on a misunderstanding. As for the rest, the edit-warring is unjustified. Glad to see him finally admit to that. Onwards and upwards.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk)17:20, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, let's see the documentation. You submitted an unblock request through UTRS, which was thenclosed, and as I recall you were still blocked afterwards. There's nothing in yourblock log to support your claim: It looks like you were unblocked because your 31 hours was up. If it turns out you are lying about this, then your behavior borders on the pathological.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk)19:57, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
Again, your personal attacks speak volumes about your agenda and you know better than to do that. I was trying to be civil here. In fact, I made this twist of events public considering I have nothing to hide and to extend the olive branch. However, to address your 'concern': The admin who responded to my request in email said it was "easier to let the block expire" than to "go through the trouble to appeal that part of it." However, the part of the block that was overturned was the part where a valid check user was performed. It turns out that they simply took you at your word, which is not what they are supposed to do given I provided a sufficient rebuttal. Once that checkuser was actually performed, it became clear there was no link between my IP and the anon you confused with my edits. The appealing admin also conceded that there was "insufficient evidence to perform a valid behavioral investigation." It failed along the guidelines ofWP:DUCK. They erred because they took what you said at face value. However, in their defense, since normally there is a high incidence of socking on these pages it is an easy mistake to make. That is why we have an appeals process. I was told, after all, it was at worst a slap of the wrist so to let it go in either case. That is all I wanted: I didn't care about the time-out. I just wanted them to acknowledge I hadn't done anything wrong. But in the interest of making peace, I was also advised to act in good faith and extend to you the benefit of the doubt. I was told that maybe you were operating under a misunderstanding. Fair enough. However, keep up the personal attacks and the smug attitude I can reconsider that generosity on my part. We can move forward OR you can continue your disruptiveness toward me. I've been trying my best to work things out with you on the talk pages, and I've conceded several of my positions already in the interest of compromise. The ball is now in your court. I have nothing left to say here on this matter. Good luck.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk)20:38, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
TheTimesAreAChanging isWP:NOTHERE -- a POV battleground editor who short-circuits into personal attacks and off-topic rants at the drop of a hat. A TBAN from American Politics is required to prevent further disruption.SPECIFICOtalk02:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Glad this came up. "TheTimesAreAChanging" has also persistently personally attacked SPECIFICO who is a thoughtful editor who stays civil for the most part. As recently as this example[244], user "TheTimesAreAChanging" attacked SPECIFICO for his name, making fun of him for picking a name that "sounds like a robot", and other mean-spirited digs. I mention this as yet another example of the bad faith, edit-warring disruptive mindset he is bringing this, not just to me, but against others on the pages that some of us are humbly trying to constructively edit. Again, this disruptive editor can not have it both ways. He clearly is versed in the rules of wiki and will lecture us at end about perceived violations against him, but then commits the same behavior with below-the-belt personal attacks like the "robot" insult. Clearly he knows better but is projecting. To whomever reads this, thanx again for your time.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk)04:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. This page has been fully protected for one week due to content-related disputes.TheTimesAreAChanging andOneshotofwhiskey: You areboth in violation of3RR over this article, and what makes it even more of an issue is the fact that it is currently underdiscretionary sanctions by thearbitration committee. But because neither one of you have edited the article after being warned of the discretionary sanctions imposed on the article, no blocks will be imposed at this time. You both are on afinal warning basis. You two are to discuss the issues on the article's talk page and in acivil manner. Failure to do so, or engaging in further edits without consensus will result indiscretionary sanctions. Please work this out peacefully between you two. I wish you both the best of luck :-)~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)05:03, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't see much good behavior from either of these editors and I don't see either of them contributing to the quality of theDinesh D'Souza but rather just pushing opposing viewpoints without end. I recommend indefinite topic bans for both of them from any articles that concern Dinesh D'Souza.Zerotalk06:01, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
@Zero0000: totally agree. A couple of TBans should sort out this kind of tendentious editing: particularly when both parties refuse to cooperate and use our procedures as weapons to win editing disputes.MuffledPocketed06:57, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I do not think it is fair that you are grading me based upon a curve against the other user. Other than this report, I have not used procedure like this elsewhere. I'm certainly not using it as a weapon. There was an edit war. What was I supposed to do? It's better to "report, and not retaliate." As for the rest, if the only solution to resolve this is to topic ban us both, then so be it if it is for the greater good of the article and Wikipedia. However, if you thoughtfully look at my edits, I've been trying my best to resolve this peacefully with the editor. If it is too late for that, then so be it. Thank you for your input.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk)07:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
There he goes again. I never said anywhere "my goal is to expose D'Souza." Perhaps I lost my temper after he attacked me with false allegations, hence that statement from me regarding what I saw as a partisan defense of D'Souza's corruption, who is in fact a felon who went to jail for serious charges. However, despite my personal feelings about that and my own political biases, I have no agenda to expose any politician. I simply didn't agree with this editor's constant reverts of my contributions to the page, most of which were neutral, mild and well-sourced. In fact, I don't want to continue this debate further. I only jumped in since the editor is trying to put words in my mouth and make claims about me that are simply untrue. The admin made a great suggestion here and I'm trying to follow it. I wish he would do the same and start using good faith.Oneshotofwhiskey (talk)06:44, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
P.S. As for his allegation that I am a sock of a formerly banned member, this was already resolved in an SPI where I was cleared of this (false) accusation and where "TheTimesAreAChanging" was admonished for how he handled it. Bringing it up here again is an unnecessary distraction and borders on a personal attack. This report is already long enough. Can we just let it be and let the admins sort it out without more mudslinging and emoting?Oneshotofwhiskey (talk)07:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Oneshotofwhiskey: You need to understand that properdispute resolution requiresteamwork,collaboration, andconsensus. You need to discuss your disagreement on the article's talk page and patiently work with one another and work towards an agreement and solutiontogether. The article in dispute is underdiscretionary sanctions, meaning that sanctions can be imposed byany uninvolved administrator to stop disruption to the project. I'm a relatively new administrator; I haven't imposed a discretionary sanction before, and I'dreally really like to keep it that way :-). If nothing comes of an attempt at a peaceful discussion on the article's talk page, then you're obviously free to follow the dispute resolution guidelines and go through the proper channels to get assistance with resolving the issue. I highly encourage you to pleaseplease move on from this with a positive mindset and with expanding the Encyclopedia with the highest quality content possible as your top priority. If you do this, everything will naturally fall into place and things will be absolutely fine! :-)
TheTimesAreAChanging: If you have evidence of sock puppetry, you need to file a report atWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations with that evidence. Making accusations of sockpuppetry in a discussion outside of an SPI report is generally disruptive... I mean, whatgood does it do, right? Pointing fingers and saying "I think he's a sock" is only going to make a disputeworse and make an angry and frustrated editoreven more angry and frustrated. That just makes things harder, man! :-) Remember that we want to try and do everything possible to lead other editors to acivil and peaceful resolution to their disagreements, and we need to assume good faith if we don't have satisfactory evidence to prove otherwise. It sounds to me like you noticed a current event occurring that involved the article subject and added the article to your watchlist with due diligence in mind, and you probably now feel that you're plopped in the middle of a dispute that you didn't intend to be so involved in. I totally get that; I've been there, dude. Just understand that repeatedly reverting content-related issues (especially to an article underdiscretionary sanctions) will generally get you sucked into the dispute spotlight, which is a drag to be in. Lets move on from this with a fresh perspective and a positive learning experience, and lets work the problem out on the article's talk page :-)
Both of you have been notified of thediscretionary sanctions imposed on this article, you've both been formally warned to discuss any content disputes on the article's talk page or use the proper channels (with evidence) to report policy violations, and you've both been told to seek properdispute resolution before making further edits or reverts. Failure to do so will result in sanctions. I'm going to close this thread as "Page protected". Please follow my advice, and please work things out properly and peacefully :-).~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)11:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
For those who are looking for an explanation behind my closure of this thread and the decision I reached regarding administrative action, I explained in-depth on my user talk page in a response to someone's messagehere. Please feel free to reach out to me if anybody has additional questions or concerns :-)~Oshwah~(talk)(contribs)14:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I see no problem with Oshwah's closure of this report. Complaints at AN3 need to be brief and usually they need to be handled quickly. Long posts full of recriminations make it difficult to see what the underlying problems might be. If issues remain, anyone dissatisfied with this closure might raise them at ANI.EdJohnston (talk)16:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
07:34, 18 October 2016 "Undid revision 744945232 by Cotton2 (talk) No, the rule is if you didn't make the playoff roster, you don't get listed."
08:14, 18 October 2016 "Undid revision 744949915 by Cotton2 (talk) see the hidden notes on Barry Zito and Brian Wilson. It's been discussed so many times on WT:Baseball"
18:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745001087 byIsambard Kingdom (talk) You seem to have mistaken your opinion for a fact. Evolution vs ID is controversial and an unbiased article should not take sides"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
I must say, I had no idea such a rule existed, and Mr Weller's message only showed up after my third revert. If I had known about the rule, I would have complied with it. Sorry about that.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBocaj12 (talk •contribs)19:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
As I said, I did not see your message until the page refreshed after my revert, and did not revert anything after you thereby brought the rule to my attention.— Precedingunsigned comment added byBocaj12 (talk •contribs)19:13, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours.Bocaj12 has been repeatedly urged here and on their own page to self-revert after being informed of the rule, but have not. Their last revert was finally reverted by someone else about five minutes ago, so I would say they had plenty of time.Bishonen |talk 19:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC).Bishonen |talk19:46, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
Comments: While BoBoMisiu is engaging in discussion on the talk page, it is purely in defense of his preferred version of the text. He does not seem willing to listen to the comments of others, nor to show a willingness to reach compromise language.Blueboar (talk)22:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)}}
00:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC) "Every other international version of the show has this table showing what judges judged which seasons, there is no reason why we shouldn't have one as well."
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:
User seems tonot be here for constructive reasons, and instead, seems to be here to promote their own edits. User was warned on their user page, and still refuses to refrain from edit-warring on the topic. It was decided upon to not use the coaches' table, and instead, use a coaches' gallery. But this IP is refusing to accept this. Option was also discussed, previously, on page's talk page.livelikemusictalk!00:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[267] (not by me, it seemed nobody was going to respond there, I posted my view there[268])
Comments:Edit-warring throughout articles. Plus - a personal attack. I asked the editor to explain the edits and the only explanation is calling me a sock (see the edit summary of the fourth revert).Judist (talk)14:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Why hasn't the user been blocked? When I violate the 3rr, I am blocked. Are you alleging me for being a sockpuppet and removing any sourced information? When you fail to prove that, I suggest penalizing the accuser for a personal attack.Judist (talk)12:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
No, I haven't, I was limited with time these days and also I hoped an user more active on those articles who also noteced evidence of socking on their behalve would do it. There is one aspect which is important to mention. The editor accusing me here is providing phalse accusations. I didn't removed any sourced information, he is the one having a weak source and missusing it to fit their bias. Look at the edit summaries and the edits themselveshere. He edited, he was reverted, and he edit-warred. He was reverted because his soource says "...most probably don't exceed..." and using it as if the author says it as a fact ommiting the "most probably". Another nice trick they use is to claim "Western authors claim..." when he only has that "most probably"-source, and also there are clearly other Western authors clearly claimiing the opposite. The issue has extensively been discussed in a specific subsection ar article's talk-page created specially for that issue, here:Talk:Serbs/Total number. So basically they ignore all strong sources found there, and think their source (not even specialised in the subject and actually claiming "msot probably" is the holly gral of the matter. Their purpose is not to find balance over the subject but just to cherry-pick sources and force their bias.FkpCascais (talk)16:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[279] (not by me)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none. Having read Froglich's talk page, I conclude that his standard response to anything he doesn't agree with is verbal abuse (e.g.[280]), not any constructive attempt at a resolution. An admin has already concluded that ([281]) that 'this user has had way, way too many "final warnings" already' for making personal attacks on other editors.FNAS (talk)10:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocked; regardless of the actions by the user whom you consider an enemy (seeWP:BATTLE, by the way), piling on attacks against him here is out of bounds.Nyttend (talk)05:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Wow. I spent an hour looking through this and find the decision very surprising. ThanksFNAS, I didn't know / had forgotten about this book and was just readingDonald Duk on a recommendation fromIshmael Reed. It seemed like good election reading... I don't see why FNAS was blocked here.SashiRolls (talk)18:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor who has crossed paths with neither of the two editors on or outside of Wikipedia and who does not understand the decision, I would like to add a courtesy ping to the administrator who reverted Froglisch's edits and who has apparently not been informed of this discussion.@Neutrality:
Comments: Although the user has not strictly violated 3RR, he has made a total of 6 reverts in two days. Further, he refuses to use the talkpage, and even claims there was no consensus over the article's version on the talkpage, defines others' edits as vandalism (as evident from the diffs above), etc. He evenremoved the 3RR warning from his talkpage. He is an experienced editor whohas a habit of deleting warnings and has used multiple accounts in the past. This might be the case with his current account as it only became active after an absence of 4 years. He only re-appeared when another user with a similar behaviour needed someone to help him in edit-warring over thePFC CSKA Sofia article. --LaveolT18:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Four reverts in a 26-hour period. User has been blocked for edit-warring twice this year, and, as his edit summaries show, is well aware of 3RR.StAnselm (talk)22:27, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
User:StAnselm Also has 4 reverts on the material and has been blocked 4 times in the past for edit warring. This material is uncontentious and editor reverts good faith edits of others. I did not make the edit that was reverted originally. It was a 3rd party editor. I responded to the attempt to resolve before the noticeboard filing. An additional editor of the page has left the sourced material and modified the sentence to be more reflective of sources. There is no controversy.Lipsquid (talk)22:34, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
20:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 745384377 byZefr (talk) they can also be listed on his bibliography as shown in the bibliography examples"
User:Zefr, can you explain why you are filing this report while you appear to have easily brokenWP:3RR on this article on October 20? The other party is certainly keeping up with you, but blocking both would be the simplest action. Do you think there is any exception to 3RR which applies to your edits?EdJohnston (talk)22:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the opportunity to reply. I followed the recommended anti-war process by 1) taking the edits to the Talk page, 2) advising and warningUser:Lithuanianlady on her Talk page, 3) providing edit comments intended to be instructive and constructive for not one but several different edits, and 4) seeking another editor's input, now on theTalk:Donald Gary Young page. Simply, I was trying to work through this with an editor,User:Lithuanianlady, determined to have her way, apparently with a nearly singular focus on this one topic. I encourage her to edit other articles constructively. --Zefr (talk)23:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
These good intentions don't exempt you fromWP:3RR. If I am the closer, you can avoid a block if you will promise to make no more edits on this article without a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page.EdJohnston (talk)01:56, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None found
Comments: I happened across this after Snowbite's most recent revert.Sro23's initial revert of Snowbite's edits indicate that Snowbite is a sock,[299] so some action is required and Snowbite has clearly violated 3RR. He is also edit-warring at{{Disney XD Original Series}}, but has not yet made 4 reverts. --AussieLegend (✉)18:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
This follows on earlier reporthere - the result of which was page protection. Upon lifting of page protection, Valerius went right back to adding some of same content.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[300]; current one ishere
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk continued at the talk page following last dispute, here:Talk:Low_level_laser_therapy#Changes.3F.
Comments: Valerius was defiant/combative with respect to what four other editors were saying there, see specific commentshere andhere andhere for example. Theintent to continue the edit war that led to PP without getting consensus is very clear.Jytdog (talk)16:05, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Blocked – 3 days. Continuation of an edit war that hasalready led to protection of the article. A large fraction of all his edits seem to be reverts. This user has alsoremoved posts by others at Talk:Serbia men's national basketball team.EdJohnston (talk)14:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Page protected – One week. This looks like a two-person edit war. Try to get agreement on the talk page. The steps ofWP:Dispute resolution are open to you.EdJohnston (talk)14:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
No violation – the reverts atBlockchain (database) are stale (October 6). Nothing at the other two articles needs admin attention. There are lots of people expressing opinions atTalk:Blockchain (database) which means that a good discussion should be possible. I hope you guys are aware you can make binding decisions using aWP:Request for comment. If instead you just continue to revert it won't have any useful results.EdJohnston (talk)16:14, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Declined – These diffs don't show a 3RR violation. If someone opened an RfC with specific statements we could get a reading on what wording actually has consensus. It is my hope that the two sides will eventually get tired of going in circles and will try following the steps ofWP:Dispute resolution.EdJohnston (talk)03:23, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks like a duck to me..--Dane2007talk21:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Already blocked at SPI.Ian.thomson (talk)05:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Warned for personal attacks and edit warring, which along with the warning byKailash29792 should hopefully get through to them. I am disinclined to block since this seems to have stopped several hours previously.Ks0stm(T•C•G•E)21:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)