Page: 2013 Australian Open – Men's Singles
Diff of reversion: [1] Page: 2016 French Open – Men's Singles
Diff of reversion: [2]

Comments:
See previous entry

• Result: No action, per above closure. EdJohnston (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Sasural Simar Ka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Sheena Dwivedi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) to 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) to 04:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 04:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 04:47, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 04:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 04:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   5. 04:49, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 04:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 04:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[3]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Comment on my own edits: I noticed towards the end of a lot of vandalism patrolling last night that I might've run up against 3RR myself for this page. It also appears that Huggle wasn't posting talk page warnings, although edit summaries explained my reverts of Sheena Dwivedi were for unexplained page blanking. As such, I think my reverts follow exemption #4 of NOT3RR. Still, I'll try to be more cautious in the future to make sure that warnings get posted to the user's talk page. --Policy Reformer(c) 16:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• User is back and is continuing to remove content from the article without any explanation. Greyjoy ^talk 07:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@PolicyReformer and Greyjoy: Sheena Dwivedi desperately needs to start using edit summaries. I don't know why the seasons info is being removed but did you notice List of Sasural Simar Ka characters was created? I'll hold this report open a bit and ask Sheena Dwivedi to respond here. Further removals without communication is risking a block. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:04, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: 1972 Miami Hurricanes football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 204.144.3.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:
Lots of reverts on both sides here. The IP should explain why MOS:REPEATLINK should be disregarded. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jweiss11 routinely reverts my edits. He's a menace. Therefore, I revert his edits to reinstate my efforts. Simple as that.204.144.3.1 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please explain why MOS:REPEATLINK should be disregarded in this case. "Generally, a link should appear only once in an article, but if helpful for readers, a link may be repeated in infoboxes, tables, image captions, footnotes, hatnotes, and at the first occurrence after the lead." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:54, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be clear that I've only made reversions of this IP editor's reversion of my edits, edits which were all made in keeping with general formatting standards applied to thousands of analogous articles and in reflection of long-standing collaboration with other editors. I've also made attempts to open a discussion with this editor, and those efforts were initially ignored in recent weeks and now have only been met with hostility today. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN, I think it some cases it make sense to repeat links in tables, particularly when they are long and require scrolling to navigate top to bottom. However, in the case of the college football schedule tables, the prevailing standard on thousands of analogous articles is not to repeat links, since they are rather short, usually not more than 15 or so rows. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for relevant discussion on the MOS talk pages

• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking/Archive_15#REPEATLINK_in_tables
• Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Linking/Archive_16#Repetition_of_links_with-in_tables

Please apply the points made in those discussions to this dispute. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:10, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Neil, I think this dispute is more about the willingness to work with other editors. It would be reasonable to debate the wikilinking styles of these tables at a place like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, perhaps with reference to those MOS discussions, and I suggested as much to this IP editor. But we have an editor calling other editor's edits "stupid" and declaring that they will continue their own "better" way. This is a behavior issue, not a content dispute. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:32, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this editor appears to have edited recently under the following addresses as well:

• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:F541:BE5C:DA4E:59C6
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:54EC:DECD:F135:ECA3
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:89E1:741:8BC3:5B6E
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:E837:86:A5BD:2180
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:9962:F7E7:BC3B:3B37
• 2601:4C0:4000:B176:7079:839A:E0A3:88A9

Jweiss11 (talk) 19:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Behavior issues are usually dealt with at WP:ANI. I suggest you open a wikilink style discussion somewhere appropriate, point the IP to the discussion, and then if they still revert and engage in unconstructive discussion, drop me a note. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring is a behavior issue, no? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I followed your advice, opened a style discussion, and pointed the IP user to it, but he still doesn't appear to be changing his approach. Please see his most recent edit (as 2601:4C0:4000:B176:D5F3:3DFC:DF8E:697B) at 1968 Miami Hurricanes football team, reverting a third editor, User:PCN02WPS. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, I suspect this IP editor is User:Drew1830, who was blocked for edit warring last November. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours @Jweiss11: Thanks for opening a discussion. Both IPs blocked 48 hours. Let me know if socks appear. NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK so how do I file a formal protest against this edit reverting stooge?Drew1830 (talk) 21:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: The reversions are continuing under Drew1830 and other 2601 series IPs. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jweiss11: Both master and IP range blocked a month. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Go90 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

108.5.103.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:43, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849524064 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
2. 23:29, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849412638 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"
3. 20:30, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 848307715 by ViperSnake151 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:41, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeatedly reinstates controversially-worded content that, despite contrary claims, are non-neutral (such as "characterized as a case study in what can go wrong"). Long-term dispute involving IP hopper. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me this editor ignores his own repeated edit warring on the same page. Also, if you read the source material for the phrase he doesn’t like, it more than accurate. Complaining editor has NEVER tried to discuss on talk page. Pot meet kettle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.5.103.181 (talk) 18:49, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Historically we've never used statements like that directly in an article unless the exact words appear in a major article (i.e. New York Times/WSJ) and its used as a quotation. Like this, it comes across as biased and non-neutral. Your edits also removed a more factual indication of how well the service had been performing (i.e. average users). There's also nothing to discuss; both me and another editor do not support the inclusion of your biased wording, meaning there is an implied consensus. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

you’ve remove a lot more than just that phrase. You eliminated coverage from another article in the body text. And there are other editors who seem to agree with my edits. So don’t claim consensus where there’s none. You haven’t tried to discuss on the talk page and yet you have reverted far more than three times. Seems to me you demand others follow rules you don’t yourself.108.5.103.181 (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I never have much patience for the "it's up to the other editor to start a discussion" type arguments. There is nothing to prevent you starting the discussion 108.5.103.181. If you start the discussion and ViperSnake does not engage then he will be the one with the explaining to do. Betty Logan (talk) 19:01, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who are the quote unquote "other editors"? They were all IPs with a similar tone and preference of the disputed wording, meaning this is a classic case of the duck test. I did expand on the history to include more key points, though. ViperSnake151  Talk  19:19, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

seems to me you’re pretty guilty of edit warring check out your efforts on the article. Reverts as follows [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17] and more.

I had nothing to do with the other edits, but you’re edit warring history is well documented.108.5.103.181 (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Page semiprotected one month. Several IPs have made changes since 29 June (three of them from the same Canadian province). Some of them look like they could be the same person. Consider using the talk page to agree on the wording of the negative evaluations of the Go90 service. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

WilliamJE (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Its at florida where it belongs. Read the notice at the top of this page."
2. 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Article says he is working at a London theatre in 2014. Stop putting things on this page where it don't belong."
3. 10:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "BBC article says he is from Suffolk"
4. Consecutive edits made from 10:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) to 10:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "He's from England= Suffolk = not the united states"
   2. 10:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Their office is in Miami"
5. Consecutive edits made from 10:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) to 10:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 10:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't belong here"
   2. 10:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't belong here,"
   3. 10:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't b"
6. 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Why do you put something in both the US and Massachusetts. Again why don't people read this page."
7. 14:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Being born of a American parent doesn't make them automatically from the US."

Reverts after filling

1. [18]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:37, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America. (TW)"
2. 11:04, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "/* US Deletion sorting */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edits with tagging undo Hhkohh (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging Tyw7 and Northamerica1000 Hhkohh (talk) 11:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh hello.--Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:29, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: He undid some of the edits on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RoFx but left vague edit summaries such as "Not a deletion sorting for this page" and expects me to have read his edit summary at the US deletion page. Any admins handling this case may wish to read User_talk:WilliamJE#US_Deletion_sorting and User_talk:Domdeparis#Deletion_sorting_United_States. I have to admit the tone of comments borderline being beligerant and uncivil. In addition, WilliamJE continually take off the notice to this edit warring page. Perhaps to hide it from those commenting on the talk page? --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Domdeparis --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Complainant is using my fixing the page (and not involving him or disputed by anyone) as evidence as edit warring proof. Namely

1. 1. 10:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't belong here"
   2. 10:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't belong here,"
   3. 10:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "Doesn't b"
2. 16:15, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Why do you put something in both the US and Massachusetts. Again why don't people read this page."
3. 14:16, 8 July 2018 (UTC) "Being born of a American parent doesn't make them automatically from the US."

And the Florida edit should be seen in light of this edit[19] by the person I was undoing....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:45, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well you initially undid Hhkohh not me. And the edit summary left was extremely vague. --Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 11:59, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have been reverted twice for using this US deletion sorting in a way that he doesn't approuve of first here [20] and when I asked why here User_talk:WilliamJE#Articles_for_deletion/Harold_M._Weintraub_Graduate_Student_Award I was told I don't see the point in complaining rather than fixing one's mistakes at deletion sorting. Apparently it is a habit around here. See the discussion thread just above this one and then here User_talk:Domdeparis#Deletion_sorting_United_States where I was basically told that I should have carried out more research to find a different category than USA. I disagree with this analysis of both cases as the first is a nationwide award and it just happens to be awarded by an organisation based in Washington state and the second is a person that does not identify with any particular place either personally or professionally and defines herself as a nomad but is American but mostly it is the agressiveness of the replies that is most worrying. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. User:WilliamJE is just coming off a block for exactly this sort of behavior, at this same location. While he's dialed it down a little, it seems he didn't learn very much.Jacona (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Think that we need to open a Topic Ban discussion for him Hhkohh (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like an overreaction to me.Jacona (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But what do you suggest if, as you say it seems he didn't learn very much. A block seems too severe but what to do if someone acts as if they WP:OWN a particular page and is bitey every time they believe that their particular set of rules are being infringed and will not allow anyone else to say differently? There seems to be no way of forming consent because they are the only one who is reverting delsorting on this page. I have notified the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting as they may have some useful input about the importance of this problem. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: I disagree your suggest because WilliamJE has previously blocked due to edit warring Hhkohh (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh:I get that but as it seems to be only this particular subject that gets him so riled up maybe a topic ban is more appropriate. He seems to be acting in good faith and is convinced that what he is doing is justified which is why I left a message on the delsort project page to have their take on it. I honestly don't get why this category needs to be so heavily defended as that. I don't see anyone doing that elsewhere and for good cause as this is the only page that has a recommendation not to add discussions directly there. That text does not exist on the Europe page or the Africa page etc etc. It was added by User:Thivierr in 2006 here as a suggestion and has since been taken as policy by some. Maybe it is time to modify it and take away its statutory nature as perceived by WilliamJE and this problem will simply go away. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Domdeparis: So I Suggest a topic ban for him as above and a 1-week block for him as repeated edit warring Hhkohh (talk) 05:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I think a topic ban would be premature. Mis-sorting deletions is a common error, and WilliamJE is acting in good faith. However, WilliamJE need to remember to AP:AGF and avoid WP:BITEing users who make mistakes. If he is unable to do so after a final warning, I would support a topic ban. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 23:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – See User talk:WilliamJE § US Deletion sorting regarding my (and other users') concerns about this user's behavior at the U.S. Deletion sorting page. My post there was started before this ANEW report was initiated. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Nb. I have drafted a proposal to create guidelines for the U.S. deletion sorting page. The discussion is located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Deletion sorting § WikiProject Deletion sorting/United States of America guideline proposal. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a note for WilliamJE to see if he is willing to participate in the guideline thread to help reach a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

2017–18 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

GTVM92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 05:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC) This revert was done after he was warned on his talk page.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Use the talk-page instead of edit warring!!! */ He doesn't tend to use the talk page"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC) "/* June protests */ there's a consensus over it"

Comments:

This is not a violation of 3RR but certainly edit warring against the built consensus. The user was previously warned in this regard. -- Mhhossein ^talk 14:18, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• GTVM92 also had a disruptive behavior on other articles. His/her edits on List of heads of state of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) includes adding unsourced materials. I reverted them but GTVM92 disrupted and eventually gamed the system by an IP to avoid the violation of 3RR. Benyamin-ln (talk) 07:36, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Warned. The user has been warned that if he/she reverts the article again, his/her account will be blocked. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 18:03, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Dragon Ball Super: Broly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

116.14.133.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:33, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849657261 by Domushen (talk) NO!!!!"
2. 13:03, 10 July 2018 (UTC) "Then don't put the voice casting first. Until reach at the end of the year. Because, you're violating and disputing the work for your ignorance. Otherwise, I report you for misbehaviour."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP warned to take up their odd issue with the voice cast section on the article's talk page, repeatedly removes content and makes intimidating comments. Domushen (talk) 16:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – If there is disagreement about including a voice cast list in the article, you should consider opening up a discussion on the talk page. If IPs won't participate there, you might have a case for semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 03:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Capture of the Esmeralda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muwatallis II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [21]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [22]
2. [23]
3. [24]
4. [25]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:
Mutawallis II delete the British Volunteers from Infobox military conflict of South American Independence, specialty of their country. Thanks Caminoderoma (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I want to point out that the editor of Caminoderoma has eliminated my editions and has added controversial information, knowing that he knows that situation. With Caminoderoma we have had the same conflict in the Spanish Wikipedia. In that place, we have been imposed an absolute prohibition to intervene in articles in which the other has edited, as a measure to end the conflict.

Caminoderoma has edited the article with malice, to affect my work. For my part, I avoided entering the articles that he intervened so that it does not happen again the same as in the Wikipedia in Spanish. However, Caminoderoma insists on its provocations now on the English Wikipedia. --Muwatallis II (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The rule in Spanish Wikipedia is delete any British or Foreign intervention in South American Independence in the Template:Infobox military conflict. This is not the rule here, in the English Wikipedia. And I demand respect Muwatallis II to my work WP:EQ.--Caminoderoma (talk) 18:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question had created it, and I began to work little by little on it (I still do not finish it). Caminoderoma intervened in the article editing the same points in which we have had conflicts in several articles of the Wikipedia in Spanish, so it is evident the bad faith with which that editor acts to provoke conflict.

See resolution of the conflict in the Wikipedia in Spanish. [28] --Muwatallis II (talk) 19:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muwatallis II and Caminoderoma: Any reason why you shouldn't both be blocked for violating WP:3RR? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider it necessary, I accept it. But I want to make clear that Caminoderoma has intervened in the article in bad faith, because with it we have had several conflicts in the Spanish Wikipedia on the same subject, and now he is looking to generate the same conflict in English Wikipedia. In the future, Caminoderoma will continue to do the same for the purpose of exhausting. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Muwatallis II and Caminoderoma: You may want to look at posting to WP:3O for help. What was decided on Spanish Wikipedia has no bearing here (and vice versa). --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:16, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I follow your suggestion and ask for a third opinion (if I did it right). [29] Thanks for your understanding NeilN. About Muwatallis II, I demand respect WP:EQ one more time.--Caminoderoma (talk) 22:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NeilN you will see that the user delete all the British Flags in other article. here, and Muwatallis changes the template war faction, as Confederate States Navy, to template of military unit. Unilateral, without any explanation, no reason to do that, only to delete the British intervention, commanders and sailors. [30] --Caminoderoma (talk) 23:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@NeilN: I follow your suggestion, ask for a third opinion: write in the article and wait with the infobox. [31] And finding opinion. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Naval_action_and_Infobox_military_conflict But it is impossible, Mutwallis delete the information again and again and move the information lost in another article!. [32].I'm worried, Mutwallis look for the conflict editing to obtain a mutual blockade. Sorry I need your help, What should I do. Thank you. --Caminoderoma (talk) 19:13, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of Caminoderoma does not tell the truth. I have not deleted the information you have placed, I have only moved it to the corresponding article section. However, he insists on repeating the same information in the introduction, achieving a tendentious and useless redundancy. All changes have been duly explained. --Muwatallis II (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, you move the information so that it is not visible [33]--Caminoderoma (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor of Caminoderoma continues the conflict, even though a paragraph was added to make the information it analyzes more striking. Continue placing repeated information. --Muwatallis II (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Green Party of England and Wales leadership election, 2018 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.125.94.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34] (initial series of edits adding material, 8 Jul, around 10pm)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35] (partial re-addition after material had been removed, but different IP address, so not certain if same person, although I presume so, 9 Jul, 16:43)
2. [36] (same partial re-addition, 9 Jul, 22:45)
3. [37] (re-added everything, 9 Jul, 22:47)
4. [38] (re-added everything, 9 Jul, 22:57)
5. [39] (re-added everything, 10 Jul, 18:17)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Green_Party_of_England_and_Wales_leadership_election,_2018#Should_the_'endorsements'_list_contain_only_notable_endorsements?

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Rod Rohrich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Downstatedoc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff at 20:30, 10 July 2018. Huge bolus of PROMO content.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 22:37, 10 July 2018
2. diff 22:43, 10 July 2018
3. diff 22:54, 10 July 2018
4. diff 00:01, 11 July 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Nope; new user, aggressively promoting article subject. They have not used any talk page.

Comments:

This person is obviously conflicted, probably undisclosed paid editing. Please block; please consider indefinite block. Jytdog (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked indefinitely and left a message on their talk page. Willing to unblock if the user answers the COI question and affirms that he/she has read and understands our policies. Neutrality^talk 02:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another new account, DrP20 (talk · contribs) has begun editing the article since User:Downstatedoc was blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page semi-protected. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Matthias Corvinus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rgvis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]
5. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] Borsoka (talk) 12:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Page: Crime in Switzerland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ZH8000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous similar report: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive368#User:ZH8000 reported by User:TheVicarsCat (Result: Warned user(s))

Previous version reverted to: [53]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

(An IP editor initially adds a sentence on drug abuse with a reliable source which backs it up.)

1 No reason for revert given

(Another IP restores it and moves to a more appropriate place.)

2 Claims in edit summary that a sentence about drug abuse is not about criminal acts!

(Restored by original IP and now two refs.)

3 Once again claiming nothing to do with crime.

(Once again restored by original IP.)

4 Claims refs don't support the claim - which they do, clearly and unambiguously.

(Restored again by original IP stating that source does say so - which it does. Also CEs it a little.)

5 No coherent reason given for reversion.

(A new IP but probably the second on a dynamic IP, restores the statement points out that ZH8000 is currently at 5RR and that if he reverts again he will take it here - and despite the warning:-)

6 And has the gall to accuse the IP of vandalism.

No four are within 24 hours, but 6 reverts must be edit warring an anyone's book.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [54] ZH8000 has dished out many 3RR warnings to others when he himself was blatantly violating the rule so is aware of the policy, but nevertheless this one was issued by one of the IPs before the sixth revert and summarily deleted as usual.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [55] Section to talk page headed "Added sentence by IP w/o any source". In fact it is sourced, but this was excactly the argument that ZH8000 tried to used in the previous case (see below). Also tries to imply that the IPs are a single person when there are clearly two involved (one from US and other(s) from UK). Cannot comment why IPs have not contributed to the talk page, but they were apparently simply reverting an unexplained removal of validly cited material.

Comments:

Note: I am not involved in this edit war other than to place my observations on ZH8000's behaviour on the article talk page. I decided to raise this because of the near identical behaviour that I reported previously.

This has a striking similarity with a previous attempt by ZH8000 to censor reliably sourced information from an article claiming that it was unsourced when it was reliably sourced (I speculated at the time that he doesn't like the sleight on his country - and I am now more convinced of that). This previous attempt was at Vignette (road tax), in which I was involved, and it became the subject of an edit warring report with ZH8000 at a staggering 7RR (here). ZH800 was warned [56] by EdJohnston. NeilN went to issue the same warning but discovered he had been beaten to it. TheVicarsCat (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for disruptive editing NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:08, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Typhoon Maria (2018) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Meow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User related

• 219.76.18.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 219.76.18.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 219.76.15.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:55, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "IP editors are not negotiable as they do not need to take responsibility for their contents, who also do not know how to use punctuation. This is 2018, not 2013."
2. 09:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849783475 by 219.76.18.73 (talk) Because Lionrock did affect and you even use the wrong punctuation. IP editors should not be allowed to edit."
3. 06:54, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Please stop emphasizing the Philippine name as Maria did not affect the Philippines."
4. 01:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Maria DID NOT reach peak at that time Suomi NPP captured on July 8. Maria DID NOT cause any damage in the Philippines, using () for simpler description."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Typhoon Maria (2018). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Philippine name */ new section"

Comments:

Edit warring with IP users on using bracket or not to display the Philippine name B dash (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have to repeat my statement here: IP editors are not negotiable. The person who insists on not using brackets switches IPs many times, showing that it is not possible to discuss. The person also did not offer any valid reason to support the edits. What I felt insulted is that B dash completely ignored the behaviours of that person who had been switching many IPs, and reported an editor who wrote the whole article. 🐱💬 14:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I also gave them the 3RR warning and reported them to here. I do believe that those 219.76 IPs are the same person. Those reverts will be counted as the same user. --B dash (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All right I should apologise for my last sentence. I also posted another reason in the talk page, as Wikipedia has been changed. 🐱💬 14:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: "IP editors are not negotiable as they do not need to take responsibility for their contents", "IP editors should not be allowed to edit". Unless you change your attitude immediately I am prepared to implement a fairly lengthy block. IP editors are not second-class editors. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:26, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am here to apologise if I have said anything impolite to unregistered persons. However, I have paid much effort to the article and I still want to complete the article, as it is about a significant tropical cyclone that is still impacting China. 🐱💬 14:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Meow: Not only was it impolite, that sentiment is against policy. Please read IPs are human too and also WP:OWN. You've posted on talk, which is good, but no more reverts here or anywhere because "IP editors should not be allowed to edit", okay? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just trying to defend the article. Yes I agree with it and I should not be too defensive to IPs. 🐱💬 14:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned Both Meow and the IP editor will refrain from edit warring over the punctuation until the matter is resolved on the talk page. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: People's Representative Council (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Farolif (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments:
The editor always add unsourced vacant parliament number (the number transcluded from Template:DPR RI). I insisted on seats number without vacant based on official website. I already ask the editor at their talk page but the editor never responded. The edit warring doesn't happen in one day but continuously. Hddty. (talk) 15:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No violation – 3RR was not broken. But if slow edit warring continues without use of the talk page, admins may have to intervene. EdJohnston (talk) 00:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Spirituality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Noncanadianji (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Another revert: [62]. WP:CENSOR violation with weird rationale. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Result: indeffed as WP:SOCK. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

2017 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

166.216.159.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:33, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849830683 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"
2. 17:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849829807 by Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk)"
3. 16:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849513151 by OZOO (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on 2017. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP is not here to positively contribute to WP Mr X ^☎️ 17:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Amorymeltzer NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Kempner function (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849843960 by RandNetter96 (talk) Not for no reason: they are not RS! As I explained in my edit summary! The Smarandache journal is a journal published by Smarandache, a famous crank and self-promoter -- it does not have peer review or any acceptance in the mathematics community. I do not think you have competence to be editing in this area."
2. 19:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849843451 by RandNetter96 (talk) If you have no substantive objection to the edit, you should not revert it. If you have a substantive objection, you should state it, otherwise there is nothing to discuss!"
3. 19:10, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 849843049 by RandNetter96 (talk) before you template a person for removing things without edit summaries, maybe you should *read their edit summaries* ?!?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC) to 19:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 19:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "/* History */ remove reference to crank, supported by primary sources only. These sources might be fine for supporting mathematical statements in the article, but they are not fine for a discussion of the history of the function."
   2. 19:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Associated series */ remove a section of pure silliness: Smarandache's self-named journal is not a RS for anything"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC) "3rr"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I don't see any reason why this [63] edit summary is allowed? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 19:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that's right, there aren't any [Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page]. That's because RandNetter96 is repeatedly reverting an edit that has a completely clear and valid explanation, without making any statement that could possibly be the subject of discussion. Condescending templates are not a substitute for thought! If RandNetter96 had the WP:COMPETENCE to judge the quality of the edit, there would be no problem, but apparently they do not -- indeed, they don't even seem vaguely interested in the question of whether the edit is good or not. (Here's a hint: of course it is.) If you're concerned about that, you can do what any reasonable person would do and go ask the experts. Anyhow, yes, I am in violation of 3RR, and if that means a block, so be it. Of course RandNetter96 is now also in violation (not to mention this, a clear and unambiguous violation of the relevant guideline), so I'm sure that I can expect admins to behave in a thoughtful and even-handed way. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC) (Moved to correct section by RandNetter96)[reply]

• Also see his previous edit summary. Clearly a disruptive editor. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 20:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is disruptive is your repeated insistence on restoring garbage content that you don't understand, literally for no reason. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And where has it been stated that it is garbage? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 20:30, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my clear and to-the-point edit summaries! Which you have not acknowledged even once! But, listen, I am a reasonable person: this comment may be the first attempt you have made to engage on the substantive issue, but that is a sign that possibly there is an actual discussion to be had, so that's great. Maybe you should spend 5 minutes seeing what google can tell you about Florentin Smarandache? There's a lot out there -- he's a notorious self-promoter and pseudo-mathematician. Take a look at the talk page, as well, where you can see a half-dozen related discussions about the weakness of various sources associated with him. You can also see the deletion discussion of the article about him. Or go ask some experts, I'm sure they would be happy to help as well. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ever heard of Original research or NPOV? RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 20:44, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone else, try to put aside the fact that I'm an IP editor and look at what I'm dealing with: someone is invoking WP:OR and WP:NPOV to reject making an attempt to assess whether a source could be an RS or not! What should another editor do in the face of this kind of nonsense? I mean, OR and NPOV are great policies, but they say nothing whatsoever about this situation. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't use the original research and neutral point of view arguments against math! I will say this. I struggle to grok anything beyond the Reimann Hypothesis (and even then I struggle past "it's something really complicated to do with primes and complex numbers, and I think 1/2 is involved somewhere, ummm), so I tip my hat to anyone who understands more maths than that. I'm going to look and see if Matt Parker or Brady Haran has anything on the Kempner function so I can at least get some understanding of it. Looking at the edits, it seems to me that 2601 is trying to remove a theory that has been either discredited or proven to be incorrect, and experience also tells me if you pick a fight with an experienced mathematician without being on the same academic level, you can expect to get blowback. (As an analogous example, go to the Linux Kernel mailing list and pick a fight with Linus Torvalds - you'll get a far worse response). You need to stop with the templated messages as they'll at best have no effect (and at worst get you a boomerang) and go and find a subject expert at Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics who understands the material - I don't. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He needs to prove it with sources, but I will go find an expert. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 20:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this Reddit thread may have something to do with it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 20:53, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than "discredited", I would describe it as more of a fringe or weight issue: the statements there are not wrong (probably), but Smarandache's orbit consists of a small, fringe-y group of people who go around naming every last thing after him and publishing non-interesting results in fake journals; the results I removed are unlikely ever to be cited by anyone outside that tiny clique. Anyhow, I appreciate your (Ritchie333) comment for its straightforwardness: if the original edit consistent of this kind of honest evaluation and explanation, instead of a BS formalist edit summary and inane template job, there would have been a subject for discussion and no edit war. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would further add that a quick glance at Talk:Kempner function shows that Smarandache has been all over this article for some years, picking fights with some of the regulars, so I'm hardly surprised that people want to keep his self-promotion out of the article. I realise WP:HNST is a bit of light-hearted relief, but this really is one case where the standard Twinkle templates inflamed a situation, rather than resolved it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 21:18, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If I may continue to offer my own twist on your take: as RandNetter inferred, I'm not new, and so WP:HNST isn't quite the right fit for me. Instead, as I see it, the kind of editors who spend all their time doing two-click-revert-and-template jobs are behaving without any thoughtfulness or engagement, and it comes off as condescending, rude, and thoughtless. You can see the same thing here, for example: the person reverting my edit has clearly not read the diff or the page history (although in that case, I admit, my edit summary was lacking). If they took the time to do the basic kind of investigation suggested by your first sentence, there would be no problem at all. The level of decency/thoughtfulness/effort required to avoid this kind of situation is very, very minimal, but a lot of editors seem not to be interested in it. --2601:142:3:F83A:2836:5723:BC35:E4C6 (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have reported this incident to ANI. RandNetter96 (Talk) (Contributions) 21:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the direct link to the incident on WP:ANI. — Mr X ^☎️ 22:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: This dispute was handled at ANI. User:RandNetter96 was blocked by User:Ritchie333 but unblocked the next day by User:331dot, after they agreed to accept Ritchie333's advice. No action against the IP editor seems to be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Democratic-Republican Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff 12:28, 11 July 2018
2. diff 12:48, 11 July 2018
3. diff 12:48, 11 July 2018
4. diff 12:48, 6 July 2018
5. diff 12:48, 6 July 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff Not a formal warning, but the editor just came off a block for EW on the same article.

Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: Lengthy: [64]

Comments: Editor appears to be an WP:SPA given the editor name and article name. Editor was briefly blocked soon after appearing for edit warring without a complaint here. Upon return, editor joined discussion; but failing to achieve consensus, restarted edit warring against multiple editors. O3000 (talk) 00:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This "Edit Warring" Claim is Unfounded

First of all, I have gone to the talk page and made thorough cases, with citations, to justify the claims made and/or to refute counterclaims.

Second, edits made since the original block were made with input and discussion from the talk page after another editor suggested I take my case there. Since then, as I previously mentioned, I have provided at least a dozen sources to corroborate any claim or argument I presented.

Third, user:Objective3000 has been openly hostile and retaliatory after I have been able to successfully counter or refute his claims with sources, often actively undoing edits he disagrees with. He has disguised this edit warring by utilizing a Tu Quoque defense in the guise of respecting Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

Fourth, if I undid anything since contributing in the talk page, it has been with citations that refute arguments for exclusion, assuming arguments were made. In such cases, for example, editors such as user:Objective3000 make a claim such as (and here I speak facetiously for brevity's sake): "Because dogs are a type of carnivorous mammal, they must be all be dangerous to humans and that's what the article on dogs should say." I respond with: "No, not all dogs are dangerous, and here are citations (primary and secondary sources with links) showing that to be the case, so that fact should be made clear on the page." Editor responds, "Readers associate carnivores with dangerous animals, to suggest otherwise would confuse them." I respond, "Well, then maybe the article on carnivores should be revised so that readers understand that not all carnivores are dangerous," Editor responds, "No, that's too confusing and should not be reflected in the article on dogs." I respond: "If our concern is that readers should be exposed to facts and citations that support those facts, we should update pages to reflect the facts and let readers go from there." Editor responds: "There's no consensus on dogs not being dangerous, so it shouldn't be included in the article." And then he goes on to undo the edit I may have made on the relevant page ("Dogs aren't dangerous, etc." [Citation]) and then reports me for edit warring after I continue arguing my claim for hours and days of seemingly nonstop back and forth, all the while threatening me with policies he claims I've violated, without once providing any facts with sources that refute any claims I made, or actively working to achieve consensus. Just deletions and threats.

I ask then, if user:Objective3000, who reported me, or any fellow editor wants meaningful consensus, should there not be meaningful discussion? Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case, so I appeal this and ask admin to consider the nature of the content that is the real question at hand. There shouldn't be precedent for double standards or for deleting sources that disagree with one's political views which user:Objective3000 has engaged in. I don't care if user:Objective3000 holds a particular personal view, but I think that presenting readers with the facts comes first. How else is consensus built, if not with all the facts on the table? If we threaten and report every person who finds sources that disagree with our personal views, how do we expect this site to remain as useful and helpful as readers expect?

P.S.: The name wasn't intended as a WP:SPA. That was a spur of the moment name I came up with because that's what I was reading about at the moment the account was created. Clearly I wasn't as clever as I thought I was being as I had created the name before I was fully aware of the implications such name might evoke. On that, and that alone, I accept fault.

The Democratic Party, est. 1792 (talk) 05:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:53, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Pharaohs in the Bible (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michel Hervé Bertaux-Navoiseau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [66] 13:59, 11 July 2018‎
2. [67] 16:02, 11 July 2018‎
3. [68] 22:09, 11 July 2018‎
4. [69] 09:17, 12 July 2018‎

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

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

Comments:
There were earlier reverts, [70] and [71] Editor blocked before for edit-warring, hence my bringing them here at 3 reverts. The last block their unblock request simply said they were right. This time I'm being told "I'm afraid you are not qualified to remove Deroche-Noblecourt's findings from a commentary about Freud's allegedly fringe theory. " Latest edit adds a lot of POV worded OR. He's been pushing a book by two brothers, Secrets of the Exodus, for years online. Minimal and unsigned discussion at FTN, just saying he's right. Doug Weller talk 05:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's just reverted again after User:A. Parrot reverted him, diff added above and times for all diffs. I tried 3 times to use Twinkle earlier this morning and failed. He's made no further attempts at discussion. Ping User:OhNoitsJamie and User:Drmies who were involved in his earlier block, which was for 60 hours. That was in 2014 but he's scarcely edited since and even then he was trying to push the same book. Doug Weller talk 08:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He's used the article talk page. Part of what he's said there is "Mr Weller is a Zionist Jew who does not want Zionism be undermined by the immense discovery of the Sabbah brothers that Akhenaten and Abraham are the same person, a discovery that is now also proven by the famous Egyptologist Desroches-Noblecourt. This makes wikipedia a political organization! " Doug Weller talk 08:42, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of three months Yunshui ^雲_水 09:37, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Template:Disneyland Resort sidebar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Royroque4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Special:Diff/816759487

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Special:Diff/838735099
2. Special:Diff/843777713
3. Special:Diff/844831183

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Special:Diff/843817713

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Special:Diff/846744899

Comments:

Long-running edit war by editor who has so far ignored and not engaged in discussion attempts. Edits have repeatedly broken template formatting. Likely continuation of edit war by previous IP jumping editor. James (^talk/_contribs) 11:51, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stale – No edits by either party since 7 June. Consider opening a discussion on the template's talk page. It is not easy for anyone else to figure out what this dispute is about. EdJohnston (talk) 22:23, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [73]
2. [74]
3. [75]
4. [76]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78] - this conversation spans several days

Comments: Zefr and I are engaged in an edit war at nootropic. 3RR/Edit war notices were given in that page’s edit summaries. It’s been ongoing for some time, but today is the first time that one of us has made a 4th revert instead of discuss on the talk page and arrive at a compromise.

I would appreciate it if someone here would enforce 3RR so that this dispute doesn’t blow up. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:Zefr and User:Seppi333 are both warned. If either of you reverts again at Nootropic without getting a prior consensus in your favor on the talk page you may be blocked for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 22:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Capture of the Esmeralda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Caminoderoma (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Third opinion say put the nationality of these people in the body of the article. Do not make it invisible moving to Footnotes. Footnotes is for search."
2. 20:58, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Do not make it invisible moving to Footnotes. Footnotes is for searched. Third opinion say put the nationality of these people in the body of the article"
3. 20:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Do not make it invisible moving to Footnotes. Footnotes is for searched. Third opinion say put the nationality of these people in the body of the article."
4. 20:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Do not make it invisible moving in note. the note is for searched Third opinion say put it on the body of article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring over section of Nationality of the forces involved (removing and putting it back). Both editors involved warned each other already. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The user mentioned also made a report here already (see above) yet still edit wars theirself. ^Semi_Hypercube ✎ 21:08, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours together with their antagonist – see case further up this page. Favonian (talk) 22:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Ann Sheetal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Aashiq ks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
2. 21:28, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 21:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
4. 21:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 16:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC) to 20:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 19:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   3. 19:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   4. 19:34, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   5. 20:40, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
   6. 20:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "/* Filmography */"
   7. 20:47, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   8. 20:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
6. Consecutive edits made from 16:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC) to 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
   1. 16:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 16:18, 12 July 2018 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:27, 12 July 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ann Sheetal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continually adding unsourced nonsense, removing afd templates after 3rr warning. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 21:29, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: User talk:124.106.134.164 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LG-Gunther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [79]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]
5. [84]
6. [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

The editor has already been informed that I am allowed to remove messages from my talk page. 124.106.134.164 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Six reverts. All restoring comments that I removed from my talk page. He has already been informed that I am allowed to remove comments. 124.106.134.164 (talk) 21:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: [88] The editor who I reported deleted this report. I have undone the removal. 124.106.134.164 (talk) 21:57, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@124.106.134.164: hey enough! i'm sorry i am apologize me and enough, will be again i am not again and apoligizing me again i am enough again. LG-Gunther :  Talk  22:05, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both of you just need to chill and let this go... LG-Gunther doesn't appear to have been aware that you can remove content from your own talk page (I let him know this), and he felt that your subsequent attempts to notify him about AN3 on his talk page and leave this report here was an attempt to troll or be disruptive. I've let him know that this isn't the case. LG-Gunther - I know that you indicated past issues as far as bullying and personal attacks, but you also need to let that go and allow yourself to move on. 124.106.134.164, let's also try to move on as well, okay? ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:10, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Warned I let LG-Gunther know about WP:BLANKING and that users are allowed to blank and remove content from their own talk pages (minus exceptions listed). The issue hasn't continued since the explanation was left. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:07, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Oshwah but the editor was told yesterday that he wasn't allowed to restore comments to my talk page. And then he restored the comments FIVE more times. He then deleted the 3RR report from this noticeboard TWICE. Oh. and he has just [89] deleted my comments, your comments and his comments from my talk page - like five minutes ago. 124.106.134.164 (talk) 22:17, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Give him the benefit of the doubt.... at least he's trying to apologize... :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: hey i'm sorry i am enough this ip and back to normal again and 110.54.128.0/17 will be not email disabled. and apology accepted. thanks. LG-Gunther :  Talk  22:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Great - let's leave him alone for awhile so things can cool down... I've also asked him to do the same for you. No more interacting for a bit... let's let ourselves get back to business as usual :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:25, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: got it. LG-Gunther :  Talk  22:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]