Page: Origin of the Romanians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iovaniorgovan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ([1])

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7], but before in the edit log

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

Comments:
Unfortunately I had no other choice to report this user who with different invented arguments want to object an image that is supported by the current RFC. Initially, not respecting the abitration, he/she just started to remove the image, after by his own action cropped the original image by his own taste and reuploaded it to Wikimedia and without any consensus - just reffering to the talk page although noone agreed but objected this - he/she removed the original image and replaced by his/her one. He argued that if the image is altered, by referring the original license may be distributed, but he was told that not this is the problem, the problem is - as mentioned earlier - that he/she removes a map supported by an RFC and he/she adds a map that gained no consensus and goes against the RFC. Still he is pretending he does not understand or will not understand, because also earlier when other user's warned him about discretionary sanctions in the page regarding another issue [9], moroeover not adding anything without community support [10], and/or drawing attention of the result of the RFC and no consensus, he/she continued the reverts and accused more parties funnily "as being confused" ([11]), ([12]). What is really annoying, by his last revert he accused me as "abusive" and not referring to the talk page, although it is not true, since a long time he/she is active mainly only in this page and in not really nice manner continously confront other editors who anyway expressed their negative opinion about this, but accusing me not referring to the talk page, although I did openly did in the edit logs, as well referring to the RFC is an obvious reference to the talk page as well is again a clear attempt to mislead the community and identify himself/herself in a positive manner after 5 (!) reverts what other's really did not do....I think this is the point when intervention is needed, more of us explained him/her the rules, but it is ignored and even we are told what he/she is doing is "legal as per wiki rules"...no comment...KIENGIR (talk) 12:23, 8 November 2018 (UTC)}}[reply]

KIENGIR informed me that Iovaniorgovan had mentioned me on this page. (1) When I proposed (to an other editor) that the caption should be changed, I did not imagine that any other editor would think that I agreed to modify the map. (2) I think the following discussion on the Talk page of the article excellently summarizes Iovaniorgovan's editing style: Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Transylvanian river names. I emphasize that the content of the debate is not interesting, it could be a simple, every day content dispute. What is remarkable that he is ready to refer to a scholar's book without any actual basis to substantiate his own original research (or rather faith or conviction). Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing that discussion up, as it simply shows a lack or reading comprehension on your part.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Borsoka, this user have really a one-way interpretation of the rules, if it is something he/she likes , then not rules are not really important but everyone else is guilty for something, but with relevantly less problematic and clear things if he/she does not like, performs every kind of objection, even deliberately "misinterpreting" the rules and/or inventing everything to bludgeon the process. It may be perfectly seen about the maps he/she promotes with much problems, but of course none of us, making the same vica versa, as he/she does.(KIENGIR (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Reply:
This editor failed to read the Talk page where the other Hungarian editor (Borsoka) agreed that: "I think the caption could be changed to "Romanian settlements in the Kingdom of Hungary (c. 1200–c. 1400)"" Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)" (that was in reply to my comment "So, it's Settled Romanians, not Settling Romanians (a subtle but important distinction). Shouldn't the caption then read "Romanian settlements"? If the caption is changed/cropped then I'd be in favor of including it, with the mention that it represents the Romanian settlements as recorded in those times by the Hungarians, etc (also important)."). The caption wasn't changed so I cropped it (all legally, as per Wiki rules). They are free to change it and replace the current photo. Moreover, the caption also bears contentious wording ("Autonomy") which can be easily misread or misconstrued (intentionally or not) in light of certain political movements (see here); to boot, "autonomy" (of either ethnic group) is not even discussed in the article so it's confusing to readers. One wonders why these editors are so attached to the title of the photo (which has no content other than the title) when the content of the map could be easily described below.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You think if you repeat your misleading in the front of the Administrators will result in something good? At is it is described in the talk page, Borsoka spoke about the caption, not cropping the image, and the the caption is "Earliest mentions of Romanian settlements in official documents in the Kingdom of Hungary (between 1200 and 1400)" that corresponds to this and was accepted. Moreover, the thing with autonomy is explained not just in the image itself, but also in the talk page. Now you introduce a new point that has again not any connection to the topic, since it is about a modern autonomy in the Communist Romania for the Hungarians, not having anything to do with the early middle ages. And please, stop misleading the community with such that "I would fail to read the talk page", I read it and you again pretend something that is not holding.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:50, 8 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I see you made a change in your reply, well it is still part of your misleading. You still fail to understand your proposal did not gain any consensus, at the same time you try to falsify outher users proposals (we all considered the "caption" the text written by us and put under the image, never any text in the image itself, and you were warned by more users they don't support your cropping and own interpretation [13], [14]). So there is an RFC that you don't respect, there is continous reverts with additions without any consensus and also continous edit warring. Not good.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

I used the word "caption" when I was referring to the map alone (before it was placed into the article), then afterwards I used "title/caption" or just "title" for clarity, but there was no confusion as to what I was referring to, hence the "cropping" mention, etc. It's possible you missed it. My comment was also added for clarity and context.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 20:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No way, none of us missed anything, furthermore anyone who will check the talk page will clearly see your coining attempt, since more editors expressed immediately that your cropping is not supported and for clarity that there is no consensus for it, despite you continued and harmed a bunch of rules. It seems certain you are aware of what you did, but instead of recognizing it, you try to evade and invent other misleading excuses (hence regardless how try to explain out the unexplainable, still you went against the RFC, without consensus, and regardless of the multiple warnings you just went on edit warring).(KIENGIR (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

The two Hungarian editors (Borsoka, Kiengir) screaming 'fire' here have been trying to sabotage this article (Origin of the Romanians) for a long time. Whether it's done on purpose or just through sheer ineptitude I can't tell, but the effect can be easily gleaned through a quick read of the article. Every independent Wiki editor who ever moderated any of the many disputes has arrived at the same conclusion: the article is a mess and is in dire need of restructuring. In fact, we've been having a discussion on the NPOV notice board about this very subject (you might want to take a quick look). The moderator there had this suggestion to make "I would recommend that each of you try to write an outline of what the major viewpoints are, which scholars support each viewpoint, and cite the important sources that describe each viewpoint. Basically, don't put the cart before the horse: don't try to figure out how to write one article from multiple points of view, before you agree on what the viewpoints are to begin with. This exercise should also help clarify the relative significance of each viewpoint, and might reveal points of agreement, positions on which there is scholarly consensus that could form the basis of background sections. Then you figure out what to do with the stuff that scholars disagree on. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:32, 1 September 2018 (UTC)" and yet Borsoka, et al, have refused to comply with it. Now "they" are again resisting another moderator's (@Srnec) suggestion to improve the article, as you can see here. I'm afraid editing wars will be unavoidable unless something is done about these editors' behavior (incidentally I see Borsoka has a history of such behavior).Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:11, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Iovaniorgovan:, your above summary does not properly reflect the facts. For instance, see my answers to Srnec's proposals here ([15]) and here ([16]). This is not the first case that your summary and the facts contradict each other (I refer to the same discussion as above: Talk:Origin of the Romanians#Transylvanian river names. And you are starting a new edit war ([17], [18]). Please stop it. Borsoka (talk) 07:24, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any independent reader of those threads can see plain as day that you are resisting the changes that should be made to the article and are clearly sabotaging any move in the direction suggested by the moderators. If you hadn't the article would've been restructured (for the better) by now (you say one thing but do another). Moreover, you are the one trying to shoehorn information into the article, presenting it as fact, when I already showed you a couple WP:RS that disagree with those statements. Please seek advice on the appropriate forums before ever attempting to do such a thing, in clear violation of Wiki rules.Iovaniorgovan (talk) 07:33, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The community and the administrators may clearly see about the hapennings since last evening, that this user does the same like in the articles, he/she does not concentrate necessarily on the real things we have, but a continous deterioration from the topic and the whereabouts, in order to draw the attention away from the real subject; his/her malicious behavior and bad faith activity. Any edit warring notice or the ongoing discussion here about his/her behavior does not pull him/her back from edit warring - (already new three reverts [19], [20], [21]), on the other hand as here and on the talk page of this another issue he/she is not just engaged to accuse other editors [22] with incivility, but as well again accusing Borsoka with "lack of comprehension", that is odd since this discussion here, and the two other discussions referred here is the prefect proof that this editor is:

- does not willing to recognize and see what he/she did wrong (also not willing to understand some rules may have serious consequences)

- completely ignoring/rejecting community decisions and tendentiously rejecting existing consensus or building it

(and he/she dare to accuse other editors of "sabotage" that he/she does continously this regarding the referred topics...should I mention the third time his/her violation of the RFC, pushing and reverting without consensus - despite of the continous warnings - the same with edit warring? It is such amazingly aggravating...).(KIENGIR (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Please allow me to reverse google-translate that for you. If you're accusing me of standing in the way of your vandalizing this article then, yes, you are correct (a quick summary of what the neutral editors/moderators have provided on the content and structure of this article is provided by another editor at the end of this discussion on the NPOV noticeboard.)Iovaniorgovan (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "vandalize" anything, and with groundless and serious accuations you don't achieve anything. You refer to a discussion that has nothing to do with the several violations you commited - not surprised again about your deterioration from the subject - also in the discussion you referred it has been clearly seen the failure to understand and recognize some things, rules and with lengthy deteriorations the only goal is to confront, deteriorate and object. Moreover with this remark "I'm afraid editing wars will be unavoidable" you just reinforced and prolonged your behavior in the future, although you ignore you are here because of your edit warring mainly - next to other serious violation of community guidelines and rules.(KIENGIR (talk) 12:30, 9 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

Information: User yust removed the report. Jannik Schwaß (talk) 18:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's the gazillionth sock of a perennial pest, totally unrelated to this case. Favonian (talk) 18:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again a revert from the user [23], again a situation where he/she completely ignores WP:BRD. If he/she makes an addition and regardless that the discussion is ongoing on or did not gain consensus yet, he/she is reverting with the reference to the "talk page and/or 3O" - even when the talk page does not support his/her reverts (not the first time as indicated above as well). But when i.e. Borsoka added something - as reffered above - he/she soon entered into a new edit war and reverted it completely, with as well the reference to the "talk page and 3O" or as an "ongoing discussion". Conclusively, he/she applies WP:BRD only when it is about any material he/she does not like, by regarding his/her additions - without consensus or against any other decision - it is not applied by him/her.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC))[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [24], but this might not be entirely accurate, as NorthBySouthBaranof has been edit warring at the article in the past

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: NorthBySouthBaranof is very well aware of our edit warring policies, and has been reported here two weeks ago.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: take a look at the talk page yourself. There are a lot of discussions on the talk page, and while NorthBySouthBaranof participated in most of them, many replies to him are still awaiting a response.

Comments:

Yes, this was over a week ago, but NorthBySouthBaranof performed another revert yesterday, which is the same as one of his reverts listed above, without responding to the stale talk page discussion in which multiple editors disagreed with his last comment there. Obviously, NorthBySouthBaranof wasn't the only one to edit war, but others performed no more than two reverts in 24 hours recently if my counting is all right. wumbolo ^^^ 17:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made no edit to the article for a week, and then simply fixed one unambiguous issue - there is no such thing as a "stated" gender identity, and the word is unnecessary. A person's gender identity simply is. That is not "edit warring" under any imaginable circumstance, so I don't see a need to further engage here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NorthBySouthBaranof has a long history of edit warring [29]

NorthBySouthBaranof was topic banned from gender related disputes for edit warring and battleground conduct: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate#NorthBySouthBaranof

NorthBySouthBaranof appealed his topic ban promising to demonstrate he could "successfully edit in those areas" and wouldn't "leap back into the middle of any fracas." It was lifted (according to one Arbitrator) "on probation." [30]

Despite all this NorthBySouthBaranof is again edit warring and battlegrounding in gender related disputes. Ultimately this will probably end with a reapplication of his topic ban. But a short timeout might nudge him in the right direction, so we can avoid it. D.Creish (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, D.Creish, a single-purpose account whose edits are essentially all right-wing POV-pushing, magically appears in another entirely-unrelated issue shortly after they also made their first-ever edit to Linda Sarsour — reverting Drmies' well-explained removal of undue-weighted material. Strange, that. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't there a policy that when someone points out problems with your behavior the thing not to do is excuse it by focusing attention on the commenters? I wasn't involved in this article but I've seen your behavior in other articles follow the same pattern. D.Creish (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's well established that anyone bringing claims against other editors opens their own behavior up to scrutiny. We even have a handy essay about it: WP:BOOMERANG. You might know that if you had more than 1,000 edits and had done anything on the encyclopedia other than push right-wing conspiracy theories about living people and remove well-sourced descriptions of white supremacists as white supremacists. But, well, you don't and you haven't. You're a single-purpose account and that fact is quite relevant here, despite your protests. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"NorthBySouthBaranof has a long history of ..." - no, but D.Creish on the other hand, who afaict is not even involved in this dispute, DOES have a long history of stalking other editors for political reasons, and who's very first edits to Wikipedia [31] - citing obscure Wikipedia policies - clearly suggest that this isn't D.Creish's first account (he's refused to identify any previous ones). As far as NBSB goes, that first diff isn't a revert. Volunteer Marek 04:02, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Volunteer Marek: yes it is a revert of this sequence of edits [32]. I should have been more specific. wumbolo ^^^ 12:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is straight up incontestable evidence of D.Creish engaging in WP:STALKing behavior and revenge edit-warring: shortly after I made this comment s/he went over to an article that s/he never edited before and proceeded to revert me [33] and then follow that up with edits which misrepresented sources [34]. Volunteer Marek 09:04, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took a look at it, and I agree. While VM reverted DC many times, VM's always come to the talk page. This has been going on for many months – DC appearing at an article for the first time and reverting VM's recent edit. That's not removing content you disagree with, that's removing content added by a specific editor. While there haven't been much more than a dozen of these cases, they shouldn't continue. VM has the benefit of editing most articles for a longer period of time than DC, but that should be a motivation for DC to edit constructively (most of their edits are to talk pages and reverting mainspace edits). wumbolo ^^^ 10:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion on this particular article/dispute, but since D.Creish dropped by to blackball NBSB, I do want to note that D.Creish has more zeal for partisan editing than respect for (or knowledge of) the BLP, as evidenced by this edit summary on Linda Sarsour: "CRYBLP all you want but this sourced", one of the weakest arguments one can use in a dispute over a BLP. Drmies (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Great Britain Olympic football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VEO15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User being reported: Tvx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of VEO15's reverts:

1. 10/17 21:17
2. 11/6 21:15
3. 11/7 18:20
4. 11/7 18:37
5. 11/8 14:51

Diffs of Tvx1's reverts:

1. 10/17 20:03
2. 10/18 11:14
3. 11/6 21:29
4. 11/7 18:30
5. 11/7 18:39

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: VEO15

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Tvx1

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tvx1 10/17 20:10 and VEO15 11/8 14:40 (I am an uninvolved editor who has this page on my watchlist and have seen the edit war progress, these are the diffs of all of the discussion on the talk page.)

Comments:

Again, I am uninvolved. I take no position on which image is correct or preferred. --DannyS712 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Both users warned: VEO15 and Tvx1 --DannyS712 (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that Tvx1 has not reverted since I warned him. But, he has been previously warned regarding edit warring:

1. 2/11/2016
2. 1/29/2017
3. 1/23/2018
4. 2/24/2018
5. 3/1/2018
6. blocked for edit warring 3/2/2018
7. dif of warning 10/27/18

Also, VEO15 has been previously warned against edit warring 2/24/2018 --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User VEO15 keeps replacing the logo at Great Britain Olympic football team with one that does not meet WP:NFC (in the process continuously adding a invalid non-free use rationale to the latter). Particularly WP:NFC#UU1#17. They have not made an attempt to demonstrate it does. They only go by their own thoughts. I have have made my continued reverts in the respect of Exemption #5 of WP:3RR (Removal of clear copyright violations or content that unquestionably violates the non-free content policy (NFCC)), even though I didn't actually commit a 3RR violation.Tvx1 12:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extending edit warring here as well (while a discussion was ongoing) - seems to be one of those editors who can't let go of the bone on a narrow range of subjects -----Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I find it pretty below the belt to come and mention an article I haven't edited for 15 days nor its talk page for 8 days. That issue has been more than settled in the mean time. I also find extremely low from you that you go and accuse someone else of "not letting go of the bone", when we discussed on that article for weeks with you and you showed no willingness whatsoever to deviate even the slightest from your stance.Tvx1 12:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: No action for now. I've left messages for both editors and VEO15 has not edited since 9 November, so is not available for negotiations. This will get resolved one way or the other. If not, this complaint can be reactivated. The separate dispute regarding Tvx1 and the Tom Pryce article would need some other report, assuming that attempts to resolve the disagreement on the talk page have actually failed. EdJohnston (talk) 21:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your judgement. However, I'm not sure what to do next. From the events it is clear that VEO15 intends to continue to revert me. A fair proposal on moving forward would be that someone reinstates the non-free content of which we are SURE that complies with the WP:NFC and that VEO15 than argues their case at WT:NFC. As it stands now, per VEO15's latest revert, the article use inappropriate non-free content and I think we should no take any risks with non-free content.Tvx1 21:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There was never a problem with the 'parent' image being used in the article in the first place, that was a can of worms opened by user:Tvx1 by uploading the 'child' image and insisting there is an issue where there isn't actually one. Ironically, the 'child' raises more issues for Wikipedia as the 'parent' covers every single base (obviously with the right WP:FUR but Tvx1 keeps on removing — a move they started in June 2016) that the 'child' is meant to cover and then some, the 'child' is effectively a redundant file but Tvx1 is standing by his worms. To sum up, there is no distinct crest for the Great Britain Olympic football teams and the other departments of Team GB, it is exactly the same as the one used by the rest of the Olympians for Great Britain. VEO^onefive 19:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

List of Irish supercentenarians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868185251 by Ifnord (talk)"
2. 15:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868184892 by Ifnord (talk) Revert unconstructive edit."
3. 15:15, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Add Irish-born supercentenarians as Ireland was part of the U.K. when they were born."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on List of Irish supercentenarians. (TW)"
2. 15:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Warnings are still visible to everyone, even if you blank the page or remove them"
3. 15:24, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on List of Irish supercentenarians. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

It's Ifnord who is edit warring. He reverts my edits even though there is no reason to revert. I think Ifnord should discuss with me about my edits before reverting. 217.21.239.230 (talk) 15:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@217.21.239.230:You are making mass changes to lists, blanking them, without discussing these changes on the article's talk page. Wikipedia is edited by consensus, you should use the process. Please see WP:EDITCONSENSUS. Ifnord (talk) 15:32, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should continue this discussion here. 217.21.239.230 (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

• Blocked – 1 month for block evasion. Last block was for one week by User:Tide rolls. This IP is evading a one-month block of a different IP, 90.226.9.15. At first glance, this looks to be Irish-vs-British nationalist edit warring, even if based on a technicality. See this edit: "There are no supercentenarians from Ireland". Though Tide rolls mentioned the longevity Arb case when issuing one of his blocks so maybe this is just a regular longevity warrior with fixed ideas about how to clean up the data. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• (non-admin comment) reverted all the list redirects made without consensus. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:46, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Sofia Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:11, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868213264 by Longhair (talk)"
2. 19:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868212709 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
3. 19:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868211373 by Charlesdrakew (talk)"
4. 20:45, 9 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868062124 by SovalValtos (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:03, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Moving forward */ cmt"
2. 19:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Moving forward */ cmt"

Comments:

This editor is only here to build a directory, not an encyclopdia. Recently blocked for the same. Charles (talk) 22:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:Jorrojorro is never going to stop, no matter what anyone says. User was blocked 24 hours for edit warring at Sofia Airport on 24 October. After the block expired, they were back at it so I asked if they wanted to avoid a longer block. The next time around, another admin did a one-week protection of Sofia Airport. This user never uses talk pages or edit summaries. It may be time for an indefinite block. EdJohnston (talk) 22:51, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely Acroterion (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Victoria Wilson-James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [36]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [37]
2. [38]
3. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: After an interaction with this user on another page, he decided to follow my edit contributions and this is one of the pages he chose to start reverting on. He claims the "Tours" section of the page is unsourced, but it would be redundant to add a source there when the tours are already sourced in the "Career" section of the article. It's similar to how we list "Albums" in the "Discography" section of a singer/band's main page. There's no point in adding a source beside the album name if the album is already cited in another section of the article (ex. Beyonce). It's redundant.

1. [40]
2. [41]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42]

Comments:
User:Walter Görlitz has been warned by many admins to stop edit warring with other users in the past. He has been blocked many times in the past for edit warring as well as violating the three-revert rule. I also noticed that another user or IP also reverted his revert of my edit and User:Walter Gorlitz threatened to somehow block that user for making that one revision, which I find strange. Horizonlove (talk) 02:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting unsourced addition of content. Should I open an SPI since the anon tipped the scales in Horizonlove's favour? First, they are not "tours", they are performances done by a company in which the subject was a member. It's misleading to state that they're tours. Second, they are not sourced as tours. For all we know, they were performances in a single location that had a long run as many theatre performances are. Horizonlove has no sources to support that these are actually tours. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:58, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notice, no attempt at discussion on the article's talk page, only comment on Horizonlove's user page after I warned for restoring unsourced content. No warnings either. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any attempt at conversation with you has obviously gone left and just jumps off-topic, so there was no point in further commenting. I just decided to take it the admin desk since you want to start an edit war. It's not usual for theater shows to take place at different theaters, hence a tour. But beside the point, you would not have known about this page if you wouldn't have followed my edits and then began an edit war. Furthermore, you have no business threatening to block another user for one revision and then trying to mask it as vandalism. Note to reviewing admin User:Walter Görlitz has also been blocked in the past for threatening another user. Also note that User:Walter Görlitz might be edit warring with two other users User:JzG and 2600:8800:1880:188:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 on this page. Horizonlove (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No threats. Just a curious coincidence. Not edit warring at Billy Graham either. Two reverts is not an edit war. The anon, who appears to be an experience editor, engaged in a fruitful discussion with me. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note This may need to be moved to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. After opening up this report, User:Walter Görlitz decided to try and retaliate against me by opening up a failed and ridiculous sockpuppet investigation against me which was a demonstration of poor behavior. I also noticed that Walter Görlitz wasted no time in reverting my notification on this talk page about this discussion, although I don't have problem with that. There may be some further behavioral problems that need to be addressed on the appropriate platform.

Also note that Walter Görlitz is close to breaking the three-revert rule on Cinematic (Owl City album) page. Three reverts within 24 hours have already been made by Walter Görlitz. Horizonlove (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The SPI isn't closed though. only the checkuser. How long are you going to be following me? That's a clearly problematic behaviour issue that should be addressed. The Owl City album was a case of WP:GWAR and again, not over 3RR. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully we would not be here if you were not following me from page to page (Victoria Wilson James, Martha Wash, etc.) but your bad behavior has made me aware of your aggressive actions, so thank you for that. You've been engaging in edit wars with other users again and instead of helping them or talking with them, you've been constantly reverting their edits and masking it as "vandalism", and then leaving "last warning" messages on their talk pages telling them to discontinue their edits or be blocked. You don't have the authority to block anyone and to imply that you do is another form of bullying and discourages users from contributing. Anyway, I think it is best to let an admin review your actions. If there is no violation, then you have nothing to worry about. Horizonlove (talk) 03:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868276512 by Risentheft (talk) Use the talk page."
2. 04:56, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868275060 by Risentheft (talk) Vandalism."
3. 04:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868274756 by Risentheft (talk) Use the talk page."
4. 04:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868273912 by Risentheft (talk) Use talk page to discuss. Most countries today are democracies, and these "experts" also consider psilocybin, LSD, and cannabis "dangerous enough to be illegal," while not saying the same of alcohol. This should cause anyone to question the intentions of these experts. DMT is not dangerous."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

• Result: Three editors have been blocked by other admins, some of them for sockpuppetry. User:Enigmaman has also applied three days of full protection. That ought to take care of it, and judging from a quick look at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MapleBark the protection is probably not overkill. EdJohnston (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868276978 by Ifnord (talk) Use the talk page."
2. 04:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868273290 by Vrsanelamat (talk)"
3. 04:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868272954 by Vrsanelamat (talk) Vandalism."
4. 04:34, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Vandalism. N,N-DMT is not a dangerous drug. N,N-DMT can be consumed as a powerful psychedelic, more so than a hallucinogen."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on N,N-Dimethyltryptamine. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Blocked – Indef as a sock by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: N,N-Dimethyltryptamine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Risentheft (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

 Comment:A lot more reverts were performed by the user, but were not listed.

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

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

Comments:

 Comment: Curious that he doesn't report the user that was actually doing the vandalism, and instead reports the user reverting the vandalism.--Risentheft (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Curious that he doesn't include my attempts to resolve the dispute on the article talk page either, which were numerous.--Risentheft (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I insistently reverted the vandalism because it's dangerous to innocent people that may stumble upon this article. Even if it gets me banned, I still think it's the right thing to do. To quote myself: "[His] version promotes casual usage of an illegal and dangerous drug", "[His] version talks about magic mushrooms, parallel dimensions, spirits and extraterrestrial entities", "It is by far more controversial".--Risentheft (talk) 07:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've handed them both a block. Rather than reach out for other remedy such as page protection or administrator intervention, these two just went at it for 2+ hours. -- Longhair\^talk 09:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: People's Mujahedin of Iran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stefka Bulgaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Stefka Bulgaria reverted everyone who edited the article yesterday. At least 6 reverts in less than one day, it's a new record! Note that there was almost no back and forth between users and Stefka Bulgaria reverted almost every new changes.

1. 19:03, 9 November 2018: [49] Reverting edit of Palosirkka.
2. [50] Removing edit by Mhhossein; the sentence saying "MEK was the first group carrying out suicide attacks in Iran"
3. [51]
4. [52] Removing edit by Mhhossein; the sentence says MEK did assassinations against the US.
5. [53], reverted me; Removed a sentence saying it did one of the deadliest attacks of the history. The source is a scholarly work.
6. 15:20, 10 November 2018: [54] Sixth one!!! Reverted edit by Mhhossein.
7. (let alone this one)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55], [56] and [57]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Most of the reverts was removing new materials and was not followed by later reverting. Hence no talk page discussion. However, one of the edits were discussed but it did not make Stefka Bulgaria's reverts stop. I had removed some contents on one of the bombings by MEK when Mhhossein said on the talk page the source is not reliable. I agreed and believed we'd better remove them until the source is evaluated at RSN. But Stefka Bulgaria did revert without carrying the WP:BURDEN and building consensus on article talk page.

Comments:

As many reverts consecutively in some days were done by stefka, I reported him last month. As result, The admin let Stefka go without any action but this decision did not affect him. You can see that Stefka Bulgaria reverted nearly all the edits done by other users. It shows that he is trying to keep his own version of the article. Saff V. (talk) 14:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are two sides involved here - and they all should be discussing instead of adding / removing bits of text (there has been a back and forth situation here from beginning of November, with little discussion). I would recommend protecting the article for some time to foster discussion on the TP - in preference to blocking editors from both sides.Icewhiz (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are defending a user with 6 reverts in less than 24hrs. Absolutely not, there's almost no back and forth situation here. As the OP said, almost every single NEW edit was reverted by stefka in last two days. The above diffs talk for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:36, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was not defending Stefka, but rather saying this is a two to tango (or in this case - three) situation. Icewhiz (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly defending an editor violating the rules and it's not unprecedented. I say almost every single NEW edit done by three editors were reverted by Stefka and you say there's a "two to tango". --Mhhossein ^talk 16:49, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As for the talk page, the last 13 topics opened in the talk page was opened either by Saff V. or me. --Mhhossein ^talk 17:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

1) All reverts were explained/justified in edit summaries. 2) Mhhossein and Saff V. have also been reverting, see recent talk page discussions. 3) I agree that protecting the page for some time would help confirm what can/cannot be included. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 00:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Stefka Bulgaria: Your swift reverts are carefully protecting your favored version against every single change by other editors, so nothing more is required, but giving you what violators of 3rr should receive. --Mhhossein ^talk 02:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saff V. and Mhhossein have vandalized the article numerous times pushing a POV; I can provide diffs if requested. Since they cant debate against reliable sources, they’re other option seems to be trying to get me blocked (yet again). Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 06:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The reviewing admin is suggested to see other cases of Stefka's misconduct in MEK article, specially the points by User:JzG showing, like now, he used to add materials without building consensus and saying Stefka inserts the points he "knows" to be true to, rather than a proper review of the sources holistically." I can refer admin to his heavy revert in other MEK related pages such as Manshour Varasteh, Masoud Keshmiri and Maryam Rajavi when he work on the same article with pahlevun. So, I'm not wondering to see Stefka asking for protection of the page which will make his version of the article safe for some time. Another thing; User Icewhiz is clearly an involved user here reverting to defend Stefka some ten days ago.Saff V. (talk) 06:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  I am not involved in the current edit war. I am involved on the talk page. My last edit to the article itself - on 24 October (so 19 days ago, not "some ten days ago") - was not to "defend Stefka" (please see WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS) but rather to remove undue information from an unreliable source.Icewhiz (talk) 07:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Mhhossein's recent edit to the MEK article is an example of the issue at hand: Mhhossein's first requests RS for more info, when a RS is provided, Mhhossein then decides he will not include the statement anyway. This has happened multiple times, and is disruptive to say the least.

About the article, there is a POV-pushing issue that I've been trying to help fix. This included some insertions by Mhhossein:

1. "commonly known in Iran as Munafiqin ("hypocrites")" (only the Iranian Regime refers to the group with this derogatory name)
2. "Anti-American campaign" (there was no "anti-American" campaign by the MEK)
3. "In June 2014, when Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) took Mosul, MEK website gave a triumphalist account of the conquest, referring to ISIS as "revolutionary forces". However in April 2015, it called the former an "extremist group" and asked the United States to fight ISIL by regime change in Iran."^[1]
4. "In August 2013, Qasim al-Araji, a member of the Security Commission in the Council of Representatives of Iraqi Parliament, stated that the organization is engaged in Syrian Civil War against Bashar al-Assad's government."^[2] (no RS found confirming that the MEK is involved in the Syria conflict)

POV-pushing at the MEK page also used to involve user:EoL, who was recently blocked for "Anti-Semetic rhetoric and disruptive behavior involving Israel and the Greater Middle East" and sockpupetry.

Both Mhhossein and Saff V. have falsely reported me here in the past [58], [59] (Mhhossein and Saff V. have worked on over 300 pages together), and Mhhossein's has also been involved in more than a few ANI reports: [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75]

Mhhossein has also a habit of casting aspersions [76][77]

About Saff V.'s report above:

1. We cannot include articles as part of "In the Media" section as there are countless of articles on this topic. This was explained in the edit summary and the section title was changed to "Documentary films".
2. There is a tag on the article saying the lede is too long, so adding controversial material to the lede is a no go without a previous discussion first.
3. As edit summary states: "No event has been specified here, hence the ^[which?])"
4. As per point 2, lede is too long, so adding controversial material to it is a no-go.
5. As edit summary states: "The MEK advocating the overthrow of the IRI is already mentioned multiple times in the article, and, as Icewhiz has suggested, they would not oppose a "soft-overthrow". Don't scarequote."
6. As edit summary states: "Per RS on TP"

Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2018/Candidates/Fred Bauder/Questions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Fred Bauder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) to last version by Fred Bauder"
2. 15:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Boing! said Zebedee (talk) to last version by Fred Bauder"
3. 15:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "Reverted edits by Winged Blades of Godric (talk) to last version by Fred Bauder"
4. Consecutive edits made from 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC) to 15:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 15:00, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Questions from Softlavender */"
   2. 15:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 14:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC) to 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
   1. 14:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC) ""
   2. 14:53, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Questions from Boing! said Zebedee */"
   3. 14:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Questions from Winged Blades of Godric */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

An ex-arb and a legacy-admin; vouching for an ARBCOM tenure; aware of 3RR...... ∯WBG^converse 15:09, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: Fred Bauder has been blocked, unblocked himself (compare WP:NEVERUNBLOCK) and been reblocked for 24 hours. Emergency desysop requested. Bishonen | talk 15:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• And has unblocked himself again. I don't think I'll follow this inevitable debacle further. Bishonen | talk 15:40, 11 November 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• We don't do formal closes at AN3 as far as I'm aware, but this is a complex situation and has already reached Arbcom. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:59, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He has been Desystopped and a case opened. Also an ANi effort to site ban him. This is way outside 3RR now. Legacypac (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [78]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [79] Here he restores content very similar to content that was previous added by disruptive ip editors and reverted by regulars at the article as unsourced here [80] and [81]
2. [82] restores unsourced content
3. [83] restores unsourced content
4. [84] and [85] continues to edit war to restore unsourced content and external links to article body

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

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

Comments:
I stumbled across the article while patrolling with Huggle, but regular editors Ammarpad and LouisAragon may have more to add. I did leave warnings on the user's talk page regarding external links and addition of unsourced content and indicated that I or volunteers at the Teahouse were available to answer additional questions, but the only response has been an edit summary calling it an unlawful removals, and now continuing to revert without edit summaries.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:01, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Western world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.180.213.19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2
3. 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: page

Comments: The user is also under an SPI and AIV
IWI (chat) 21:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – One week for evasion by User:Favonian per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SuperSucker. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Battle of Shanggao (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:56, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868472547 by Citizen Canine (talk)User-4488,he has long abused IP manufacturing damage, the editor did not help the content at all, his editor just added damage"
2. 11:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868434010 by 107.77.213.123 (talkUser-4488,he has long abused IP manufacturing damage, the editor did not help the content at all, his editor just added damage"
3. 11:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "Undid revision 868434010 by 107.77.213.123 (talk)User-4488,he has long abused IP manufacturing damage, the editor did not help the content at all, his editor just added damage"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Also warring on Battle of Jinan funplussmart (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 12:08, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This anon is mobile and will quickly change IPs. I put together a list of articles that seem to have commonality. User:Jim1138/Single use IP

Page: The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chas. Caltrop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: initial diff, 15:06, 11 November 2018

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff, restored above after revert, and changed more 15:43, 11 November 2018
2. diff, restored above after revert, and did more 17:33, 11 November 2018
3. diff, restored one thing, given EW notice after this. 17:52, 11 November 2018
4. diff, after being reverted on a different edit, restored it, and did more. 03:23, 12 November 2018
5. diff, reverted major reversion of their edits 09:55, 12 November 2018
6. diff, again reverted major reversion of their edits, then did more in subsequent diffs 10:20, 12 November 2018
7. diff again reverted major reversion of their edits, then did more in subsequent diffs 14:42, 12 November 2018

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff; please note their responses there.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:The_Protocols_of_the_Elders_of_Zion#Proposed_rollback and the section below it.

Comments:
This person seems determined to rewrite the page, regardless of other editors' objections. Their talk page behavior makes proclamations rather than discussing (e.g here, with edit note "reply to page owners". Doesn't seem to understand what we do here and how we do it. Initial response here changed another user's comments along with the odd proclamatory style. Jytdog (talk) 15:53, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Jytdog

You are incorrect; I have repeatedly asked you and the other editors to be specific and give examples of which edit is factually incorrect. Collectively, you have replied with personality conflict complaints, followed by rollback of all of my editorial contributions. Surely, not every one of my edits is factually incorrect, is it, Colleague? I notice that you complain about me personally, rather than about me editorially. Am I out of line in asking you to be specific about my errors? Because when I wrote page-owner behaviour, it describes editors who revert all of my edits, and yet refuse to be specific about why my edit is "wrong". In my editorial experience, that is "Because I just don't like it!" Otherwise, why not tell me where are my factual errors, i.e. What section? Which paragraph? Which paragraph-line? Which sentence? Such high-hand force in applying the rules to me does bespeak gate-keeper behaviour. 'Please, Jytdog, limit yourself to my editorial contributions, not my personality.

Among the factual corrections I have realised, is the removal of the unsubtle POV-pushing, by way of Jew-baiting, by always mentioning the Jewishness of a personage, but not mentioning the Christianity of the American historian Daniel Pipes, yet mentioning the Jewishness of the Brit journalists who uncovered the anti-Semitic fraudof The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion (1903). I know something of the subject, but do not command the rules, regulations, and guidelines of Wikipedia. So, please, tell me is there a rule that allows the continual restoration of such specific examples of POV-pushing?

Let me know,

Regards

Chas. Caltrop (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That about says it all. Jytdog (talk) 16:47, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog and I rarely if ever agree but this report is correct. Coretheapple (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Talk about "see a bit and dream a bit". Had Chas Caltrop popped up on the talk page wanting to discuss whether there was a disparity in the way in which different people's religions were mentioned in the article then that could have been discussed. Maybe a few minor changes could have been agreed. Instead he makes a load of large edits to no obvious purpose, and with very uninformative edit summaries. Only when we get here do we discover his reasoning. He blows it all up into "unsubtle POV-pushing" and "Jew-baiting" but I see none of that in the article as it was before he started on it and I'm somebody who loves nothing more than catching racists, anti-Semites and similar scumbags in the act, hitting revert and putting them straight on final warning. In other words, I'd be 100% behind his efforts if they had any basis to them and were executed semi-competently. Instead I see genuinely puzzling edits. They are not all obviously entirely bad but most not obviously net improvements either. I see edit summaries so uninformative that they do seem to have been chosen almost at random. I see people being confused by this and trying to straighten things back out. I see them trying to discuss with him and getting nowhere. My messages on his talk page sometimes got replied to with non-sequiturs which I genuinely can't make any sense of. More than anything else I see somebody who has repeatedly blundered into articles on sensitive subjects and gone through "like a bull in a china shop" leaving a mess for other people to clear up. I'm not sure if he is oblivious to this but he has been here long enough that he should have some idea what he is doing. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Iz One (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Mkenny6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:54, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "This is composed by nine Koreans and three Japaneses but does that mean this group is K-pop and J-pop? Non-sense!! This group is from K-pop purely! In your theory, TWICE is K-pop and J-pop? Please make sure the fact. Do not reply on the source which would be wrong. This is definite whoever see this!"
2. 18:48, 12 November 2018 (UTC) ""
3. 18:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "genre is K-pop only. This group is not for J-pop!"
4. 18:36, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "genre is K-pop only. This group is not for J-pop!"
5. (RV after report) 19:20, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "Please make sure that this group is from K-pop. Why is this group originated on J-pop as well? Do not rely on the superficial sources!! In your theory, TWICE is also J-pop genre? You know this is so ridiculous, don't you? I want to ask you that are you Japan-friendly user? See the fact and do not distort the fact!!!"
6. (and again) 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "See my comments on your talk page! Please see the essence and do not hang on the superficial sources. Whoever think of it, this group was created by K-pop and not based on the J-pop? Why do you think that this is J-pop genre? What did they do to create this group? This is so ridiculous!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:46, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Cut it out */ new section"
2. 18:59, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Cut it out */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 18:57, 12 November 2018 (UTC) "/* Nationality dispute */"

Comments:

I gave the user an opportunity to self-revert, and they have not done so. They have seen the warning - [88]. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mkenny6

I know that the entertainment industry in Japan is envious and jealous because of the tremendous success of k-pop. They want to inform j-pop by the free ride to k-pop. Produce 48 is one such attempt. But the obvious and unchanging fact is that Iz One, created by Korea's Mnet program, Producr48, is absolutely a K-pop group. Even if three Japanese members joined, this cannot explain that it is J-pop group or genre. Many sources, such as news about this group, are simply having superficial facts. Please do not rely too heavily on these superficial sources and deliver the only fact! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenny6 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mkenny6: I see you didn't respond at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive378#User:Mkenny6_reported_by_User:Jim1138_(Result:_Blocked), so you've never contributed here before. The issue at hand is your edit warring, not the correct genre of the article. Your comments against J-pop indicate that you're a Single-purpose account dedicated to being a Genre warrior. You don't seem to get it, in which case an INDEF block looks inevitable. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Mkenny6

What are you talking about? Why would I do this to fight a genre war? I just do not want to distort the facts. Have you ever wondered what people would think if they did not know about this group and saw Wikipedia information? Again, this group is a pure Kpop group. Can you say this group is Jpop genre because Japanese members are in it? Please do not distort the essence by hanging on a superficial source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenny6 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Read the linked Genre Warrior page.

1. "Genre warriors almost never provide sources beyond their own knowledge." Y
2. "Reliable sources and consensus are alien concepts to them." Y
3. "Genre warriors enjoy the music of a particular group but would feel (choose one: ashamed, emasculated, belittled) to have the music—and by extension, themselves—categorized in a usually undesirable genre." Y

∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 19:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]