Page: George III of the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Colonestarrice (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] undoing insertion of words "the United Kingdom of" between "King of" and "Great Britain and Ireland"[6][7]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9][10][11]

Comments:
How is that a revert? I did not reinstate anything from my previous version. On the contrary, I appreciated that @Surtsicna: understood the issue and tried to find a compromise and I participated in the search for a compromise. Colonestarrice (talk) 11:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Already explained above. DrKay (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Undoing insertion of words" is a very creative alternative for removed, and removing and adding things constitute the normal process of editing, which is not really the same as undoing. Colonestarrice (talk) 14:34, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor inserted some words. You removed them. That removal is a revert. See Help:Reverting. DrKay (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"An editor inserted some words. You removed them." – actually I didn't. Surtsicna's revision stated: "King of (the United Kingdom of) Great Britain and Ireland". I changed this to: "King of Great Britain and Ireland / King of the United Kingdom". So regardless of the fact that I did not revert Surtsicna's version to any previous one, I didn't remove United Kingdom nor King of nor Great Britain and Ireland either, I just changed their order and the formatting. Colonestarrice (talk) 18:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor inserted the words "the United Kingdom of" between the words "King of" and "Great Britain and Ireland". You removed them. That is a revert whether you simultaneous perform another edit or not. DrKay (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert. WP:3RR policy explains further. CBS527^Talk 16:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:Colonestarrice is advised to wait for consensus. They seem to have broken the WP:3RR on 4 January at George III of the United Kingdom. There were four reverts starting with this edit. The dispute was about whether to describe George I as 'King of the United Kingdom' in the infobox. If Colonesstarrice intends to change the infobox again they are advised to get a talk page consensus first. EdJohnston (talk) 02:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Pikmin 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leitmotiv (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. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&oldid=877126739
2. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&oldid=877141828
3. [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pikmin_2&oldid=877144909
4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Pikmin_2#Underground_Cave

Comments:
Continual edit warring from Leitmotiv. Has been told multiple times over multiple months to reach consensus and not just reassert their edit. This reporting template is a little confusing, sorry if there are any errors. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm within the 3RR. Also a reminder to Basilosauridae, that not following her own advice and blind reverting is also edit warring. I can't edit war with myself. You are also an implied party. The difference between my edits and yours, is that I supplied new evidence for my new edits (which was a suggestion from the previous thread last year), which you seem to summarily disregard. I'm simply following Wikipedia's WP:BOLD policy, for which there does not need to be a consensus previously reached. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't provide new evidence. Saying you reviewed it is not presenting evidence. Your WP:BOLD argument has already been addressed on the talk page. If you think you have evidence to support your edit, present it on the talk page for evaluation. You know that there is a talk page discussion where multiple people objected to your edit, but you are choosing to ignore that discussion and make your edit. This is edit warring. Your edit was made three times despite reverts and requests to discuss on talk page, to my understanding that violates 3RR. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 21:54, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Clearly you didn't see it in the talk page and not doing your due diligence that you require of me. Can't have it one way. As for my bold argument, I won that one by the way, so it was addressed in my favor since no one had a rebuttal nor provided any new insight to Wikipedia's own policies. The only one ignoring anything, appears to be you. This latest comment by you is evidence of that suggesting I should post evidence in the talk page, when I have already done so. Ouch... you're failing hard. Leitmotiv (talk) 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Per Bradv's own comments "be bold, revert, discuss" is exactly what I did, and you did not. You are the implied edit warring person here that goes beyond my edits. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to direct me to where those things happened, because I don't see where any of that occurred and view your statements here as a misrepresentation of events. In the absence of that, I will wait for admin to evaluate and respond. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:02, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are unwilling to read my comment on my own supplied evidence, clearly you are not up to the task of reviewing anything I supply. I've read the entire discussion prior to my edits, and you should have as well. You've pretty much disregarded everything and flushed the due diligence required of you. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:04, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with asking you to summarize your evidence or at least point out to me where it is. Not sure why this is egregious to you. If you think you're right, provide the evidence. Saying you reviewed something and have reached the conclusion that it is how you say it is isn't evidence. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's egregrious because you require that of me, but you can't bring yourself to do it. I've supplied exactly what you've demanded and you continue to blind revert. Read the article in question's talk page and you'll finally be up to speed. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol ok. This isn’t how a discussion works. I have read the page and don’t see anything that constitutes as your evidence. I won’t engage with you further as you have expressed an unwillingness to have a constructive discussion. Will wait for admin comment. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:14, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're only laughing at yourself. Also for the admin involved, here is the evidence I supplied in the talk page. This is not intended to help Basilosauridae, but the admin reviewing this case. Basilosauridae should have identified this long ago. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

as you can see, nobody agreed that what you are referring to was a valid reason to make your edit, so you’re just providing proof that you are edit warring without reaching consensus. I thought you meant new, undisputed evidence. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:22, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to reach consensus for new evidence (and yes I'm claiming new, undisputed evidence as contrasted with Tantamount's original revert - are you sure you're reading the talk page? Certainly not responding to it). I'm acting on Bold policies as stated before. You are going in circles now. The only person not discussing in the talk page is you, which you clearly have demonstrated an interest in doing so, but have refrained from. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

you don’t have new evidence, you linked to evidence that was already discussed and disregarded by everyone else in the discussion as an invalid reason. I’m clearly on the talk page then and on the talk page now, I don’t think misrepresenting events that are clearly viewable by everyone here will help you in any way. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:32, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No one supplied evidence like I did in the original conversation last year - but I have done it today. And you claiming you are a part of a new discussion, regarding new evidence, is a bold faced lie. The last time you talked in there regarding the actual dispute was half a year ago. You're not actively following your own advice today. Posting about edit warring is not participation in the discussion at hand, no matter what delusions you want to believe. You're the one misrepresenting your current participation on the matter. All you've done is blind revert and discuss edit warring. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed I was in a new discussion about new evidence; I am in a new discussion requesting you to present your "new" evidence, which you have not done. You have just rehashed old, already disputed evidence. The conversation took place half a year ago, so your critique on that is invalid; your actions today resurrected that discussion. I asked you to discuss today's edit on the talk page. Burden is on you to post your "new" evidence on the talk page, as you are aware that editors don't agree with your edit. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 22:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it was implied. Don't fool yourself. Discussions are on talk pages, not in blind reverts by yourself. You haven't been actively participating per your own advice. Leitmotiv (talk) 22:53, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of the scenario that lead us here today:

• 1. I find evidence of the type of cave in the Dream Den portion of the game in a video. I make an edit based on that - no I did not supply the source of my edit in the notation, though I should have.
• 2. Blind revert by Basil citing need to discuss on talk page first (this goes against WP:BOLD)
• 3. I put my findings on the talk page with a link to the video that is behind my edits (something that is missed by Basil until later; only after she reads it does she misrepresent my post and say it's nothing new, but it is entirely new to the previous discussion from a year ago in which NO evidence was supplied)
• 4. I revert based on my participation on the talk page and revert per WP:BOLD because of her blind revert.
• 5. Basil blind reverts stating something about "my reasoning doesn't negate the need for consensus" which is flies in the face of WP:BOLD
• 6. I revert because I have taken it to the talk page and she isn't discussing it there like I am. As of this post, she has not shown a willingness to engage on the talk page. A discussion about edit warring is not at all related to the edits about the cave being underground. That is not participation, that is avoidance.

Final remark for now: The original edits 6 months ago all hinged on Tantamounts perception that this particular cave in the game needed to be distinguished as "underground" because in his words "they may be in hills [too]". After reviewing the video, the cave is not in a hill, therefore Tantamounts' original post is no longer valid, because it is indeed in the ground, therefore a need to distinguish the cave from other types, is no longer a valid argument. In the discussion there was emphasis on needing to distinguish the type of cave - I posted that evidence today. It's a cave - caves are in the ground. "Underground cave" is redundant no matter how you slice it. Leitmotiv (talk) 00:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary is not accurate, but obviously there is a record of everything that has occurred. To say today that you have new evidence that your edit is correct, and then to state above that your new evidence is the same that has already been disputed and state that it was "entirely new to the previous conversation" somehow makes it new evidence today is absurd. The bottom line to this issue is that you failed to reach consensus on this exact issue in the summer, and are attempting to assert it again without discussion. As you have already been told, WP:BOLD doesn't state that you get to add whatever you want without consensus or discussion. Your bold edit is being contested. Deal with it in the appropriate manner, which is to discuss or open an RfC. To say you brought this edit to the talk page today is absolutely inaccurate, as clearly I started the conversation today after you began edit warring. Again, because you knew that this same edit was contested in the summer and consensus was that your edit was not appropriate, the burden is on you to present an argument for your edits today and attempt to reach a consensus when the edit is contested by another editor. ^†Basilosauridae❯❯❯Talk 01:25, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's new evidence. No one in the previous discussion even thought about looking at what the cave looked like in the game. Only I did that today. It's new whether you like it or not. I've done all that you stated here, and more than you since you haven't discussed it on the talk page. Your claim that you "started the conversation today" is patently false. There is no record of you discussing anything yet - sorry edit warring doesn't count. Leitmotiv (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: User:Leitmotiv is warned for long term edit warring at Pikmin 2. They have removed the word 'underground' a total of seven times since June, against the opposition of other editors. They are risking a block the next time they revert unless they have obtained a prior consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 16:32, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Ninth Doctor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:59, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877147758 by DonQuixote (talk)"
2. 21:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877147424 by TedEdwards (talk) (In 'Rose' he enters the TARDIS and exits in another location, meaning by all definition he travelled with the Doctor)"
3. 21:51, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877146606 by TedEdwards (talk) (The official wikipedia page for a companion states "the term "companion" refers to a character who travels with, or shares the adventures of the Doctor." Mickey smith travels with the Doctor in "Rose".)"
4. 21:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877144629 by DonQuixote (talk)"
5. 21:23, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877130039 by TedEdwards (talk) (Is commonly accepted as a companion for 9. Also is the second person to travel in the TARDIS in the revival series)"
6. 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 21:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is repeatedly adding unsourced content to the page. --TedEdwards 22:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Found another revert on same page. Also DonQuixote has warned the user for adding unsourced content three times today on User talk:HMITFilms. --TedEdwards 22:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC) Edit war seems to be continuing, with revert by HMITFilms at 22:08 --TedEdwards 22:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC) And they've done it again (at 00:59, 7 January 2019 (UTC). --TedEdwards 01:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Byzantine Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877146646 by Alexikoua (talk) no its not. The article only notes that Armenian was used by an educated class. Nothing about the frontier districts. So its not mentioned in the article. Please don't remove sourced material on a wp:idontlikeit basis. Thank you. Make use of the talkpage as well if there is something of an issue."
2. 19:17, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "precise. Harris notes Armenian and Slavic languages was being widely spoken, i.e in frontier districts. This is an important piece of information."
3. 01:56, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "ok fixed issues with the previous sentence and placed the correct page number. Made article sentence conform properly to convey the source. I placed an extra weblink within the ref to the scholarly source as its accessible, so i thought no quote would be needed. Can place one though."
4. 01:12, 6 January 2019 (UTC) "Undid revision 877016670 by Khirurg (talk) no consensus for removal. Take to talk page."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Breached 3RR before I became aware of it.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has re-instated the text " the Armenian and various Slavic languages were widely spoken, in particular within border districts" 4 times in the last 24 hours. In addition to a brightline 3RR violation, it's also a WP:CLOP violation. Khirurg (talk) 23:15, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Khirurg: Did you warn/remind Resnjari before reporting him? Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:30, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No i was not warned or reminded by @Khirurg.Resnjari (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Khirurg also states that the content was CLOP yet they themselves added [12] the same content to the article. When i restored the content, i overall kept @Khirurg's phrasing and sentence structure [13] and no one brought up CLOP at that time.Resnjari (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Ktrimi991 is tagteaming with Resnjari edit-warring to restore a clear WP:CLOP violation to a featured article. I think he should be blocked as well. Please note also both Resnjari and Ktrimi991 are frequent edit-warriors and have been reported and warned at this noticeboard multiple times. In this case, edit-warring to restore CLOP in the article is a new low. By the way, CLOP is still in the article, after Ktrimi991 edit-warred it twice. For example, despite the clear warning in my edit-summary, he cluelessly reinstates it almost unchanged for the second time; the first time he also ignored my first CLOP warning. What concerns me also, is the ability of these editors to understand what WP:CLOP is, let alone not to tagteam to edit-war it into articles. Dr. K. 00:13, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Resnjari: Initially content on languages of the empire had been in the article for some time and was removed by @Khirurg [14]. Later it was reinserted by @Cinadon30 [15]. @Khirurg reverted [16] @Cinadon30 and wrote "rv (revenge revert?), this has nothing to do with nomenclature). I reverted @Khirurg [17] as the edit was something personal toward another editor and not about content, i asked the editor to use the talkpage. Then @Dr. K. reverted that edit on OR issues [18]. At further examination indeed there were OR issues and my next edit altered the sentence to reflect the source [19] and remove concerns. @Khirurg then deleted [20] the sentence stating that those things were covered in the article and then right after that readded [21] the content moving it to the language section. That's fine. Then @Alexikoua removed [22] the content stating it was covered in the article and i reverted [23] the editor and said it was not. @Alexikoua then reverted [24] by also additionally saying that it was "inappropriate generalisation". I reverted the editor as the reason was insufficient for removal of RS content [25] explaining in the edit summary that it was not covered in the article and invited @Alexikoua to discuss on the talkpage. Later @Dr. K. reverted [26] on CLOP grounds and notified me of a 3RR warning in their edit summary. After that as no one used the talkpage i opened up a thread on the issue [27] and invited @Dr. K. to take part. Through the whole process i forgot that there were multiple reverts until @Dr.K. reminded me in their edit summary. After that i no longer made edits and focused my attention toward the article talkpage.Resnjari (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Removing WP:CLOP from an article requires no discussion. This CLOP is self-evident and it still stands in the article. Your edit-warring partner mistakenly thinks he removed it. But it is still there. If you understand it is CLOP, then remove it. Otherwise, at a minimum, your partner should be blocked because he doesn't know what constitutes CLOP and, despite that, he reflexively edit-wars it into the article, going so far as to give edit-warring warnings to editors who explain to him what is CLOP and that he is adding the CLOP into the article. It is obvious he has no idea as to what constitutes CLOP. Dr. K. 03:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was no engagement from your part in the talkpage at all, and i pinged you as well in good faith so you don't miss it. On the edit summary you first noted that the matter was about OR issues with the content [28]. I took those concerns seriously, found the book and located the page where the content was from. I provided a reference and proper attribution for it (previously missing) and adjusted the content accordingly [29]. The content is not plagerised and there is only so many words that can be substituted to write a sentence in ones own words while keeping with the source. The edit involves important information about the status of language among the commonfolk of the empire in the borderland districts, information that is glaringly lacking from the article. Also i do understand that it is a feature article however that too does not preclude further edits to a page, especially on the topic of the Byzantine empire where scholarship is massive and continuously published every year. The purpose of the edit is to make the article better and informative for a reader. And please don't call other people "my partner" and so on. If other people have edited the article or have it on their watchlist its their business. The article does not fall under WP:OWNERSHIP of any editor. Our contributions here are to the betterment of knowledge for this project, hopefully done in a respectful manner without mudslinging.Resnjari (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said in my previous reply to you, this CLOP is obvious, so no engagement is required from me on the talkpage. Your pinging was, threfore, useless. As far as partner, when one strikes 7 minutes after I reverted your CLOP and reinstates the CLOP, what do you call him? And then strikes again, after what 9-10 minutes. Partner is as good a name as any other. Buddy could also be used. But I digress. Dr. K. 04:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to you in good faith. How you interpret that is your business. How you view or refer to other editors is also your business, i guess. Looking at the page history the editor to whom you refer to has edited the article in the past. People have the article on their watchlist and is not under WP:OWNERSHIP.Resnjari (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I don't know what the reference to OWN is all about, but I still think the timing and frequency of the other editor's response to restore an identified CLOP was a bit too much of a coincidence and a lot out of line. Dr. K. 05:10, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that the article is open to anyone to edit, provided the content of the edit is relevant to the topic. On the issue of CLOP. There is nothing in the article about language usage of the commonfolk of the borderland districts. A sizable part of the geopolitical history of the empire was shaped by events and populations of those districts. The sentence was written to convey the content of the source. The sentence is about language usage. There is only so many words that one can substitute for how it is written in the source while honouring the context of the scholarship. I ask how does one substitute words like Armenian without running into CLOP issues? Is there another way of saying Armenian? Hence my pinging you in the talkpage for further consultation and discussion.Resnjari (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I understand. But you cannot have a meaningful conversation when someone else insists on restoring the CLOP come hell or high water. First, CLOP gets removed, then CLOP gets discussed. Not the other way around. It isn't about the use of the language names. It is about the terminology and syntax of the CLOP'ed sentence. One has to alter it sufficiently so that it does not resemble the terminology and structure of the original. Dr. K. 06:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote it as best i could. As i said there is only so many words that one could use in substitution while staying true to the source. Comparisons with the sentence i placed and the source itself shows this. Also after @Khirurg reinserted [30] the content back into the article i overall kept to that editor's phrasing and wording [31], [32]. On reverts, other editors themselves gave all sorts of reasons for removing the content with @Khirurg for example first removing and then placing it back. What is one to make of that apart from thinking what is going on with regards to that editor while with others is this about wp:idontlikeit. I did suggest multiple times in my edit summaries to use the talkpage and that was before CLOP was brought up as a reason.Resnjari (talk) 06:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll work on a CLOP-free formulation and will present it later today. Hopefully, and it's hard to have to say such obvious and commonsense thing, I won't see that atrocious CLOP sentence back in the article when I return. Dr. K. 08:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence at the very least would need to incorporate context/information of the source on the matter. @Khirirg has expressed in an edit summary within the article that they are ok with the material [33] of the source.Resnjari (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note to administrators: Though i don't know what will happen here with me, the original dispute over the sentence about languages and the commonfolk of the border districts has been resolved in the article via an addition by @Dr.K. [34].Resnjari (talk) 22:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You broke 3RR and knowingly violated WP:CLOP at a Featured Article you have contributed nothing to, only chaos. You added material about Language into a section about Nomenclature. This is disruption and incompetence. Not only that, but about a month ago you said "lessons were learned" regarding your past blocks for edit-warring. I expressed skepticism at the time [35] and it looked like I was right. Khirurg (talk) 03:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article is on my watchlist. That does not preclude any editor from editing the article. On nomenclature the initial content was there. I had no problem when you moved it to the language section [36] in the form that you wrote it. No one mentioned CLOP regarding your edit or the form of phrasing you had for the sentence. I kept that form and did not break from it.Resnjari (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't have access to the source at the time, and assumed good faith that it wasn't WP:CLOP. But you did have access to the source [37]. Khirurg (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that does not suffice. In good faith when i readded the content [38] not only did i place a page number (previously missing), i also added a weblink to the reference for any editor to consult themselves as i wanted others to check too. In that same edit i also noted this in my edit summary. When you first deleted the content [39] and right after readded it [40] with the whole reference, it too included the weblink to the source. How can you say that there was no access?Resnjari (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khirurg does not come here with clean hands as he breached en:BRD. At the top of that, his edit summary was irritating.[[41] Not respecting BRD and being aggressive in the edit-summaries, most often results in edit wars and accusations of pov-pushing. At the December 30th, Khirurg made a number of edits, I reverted one of them and he was fast to re-revert mentioning "revenge" by me (but very slow on taking it to the Talk Page to establish consensus). Khirurg and I share a different perspective on a number of topics, and this is the normal, obvious and expected cause of the reverts. Should I accuse him whenever I get reverted? This shows lack of WP:AGF. Worth noting that Resnjari did try to use the talk page (twice before he got a respond), so he is not a "revert"-maniac. Having said that, I believe that all involved users at the edit war (including me), we should all be warned against edit warring and follow a 1-revert rule for a week or so. Cinadon36 (talk) 09:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Resnjari recently displays stubborn wp:OWN (with BRD breaches and POV pushing) instant reverting in a variety of articles. Unfortunately talkpage participation to calm down this "enthousiasm" is not enough (he dismisses as "trolling" anything against his POV [[42]][[43]]). This 3rr violation is unacceptable for an editor that participates in this project for more than a couple of years. I believe that a short term block is warranted since it will calm down this enthousiasm and make him participate in correspondent discussions in a productive way.Alexikoua (talk) 12:19, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually no. On the Origins of the Albanians page two thirds of the recent edits that were done to the article were mine to begin with. After you removed images of Albanians from the page i asked you politely [44] in the talkpage to elaborate as to why. Your reasons were very concerning where race was used as a rationale (no other editor there said such things). The following comments of yours @Alexikoua speak for themselves:

• "They look like typical Caucasian people & nothing can be added without concensus" [45]
• "Images of typical Caucasian people prove nothing." [46]
• "It appears you misunderstood something: Caucasian is widely used as an alternative for white people." [47] -in that same edit to prove your point you included a map from the discredited work about races by Carleton Coon
• "Cartel Coon was born in 20th century (LOL). I assume you need to present a decent argument in this topic and to understand that raising the Albanian flag doesn't affect your genetics. Such pictures are unaccaptable in genetics section & non-Albanians can also raise Albanian flag or any other flag." [48]
• "Agree with Khirurg nothing useful from this recently added pictures. I have the feeling that the motive is somewhat racist here: genetically pure Albanians can raise the national flag, white race characteristics etc. etc." [49].
• "It's a good step we agree that typical white people in modern western style clothes are not helpful in an article about a specific ethinc group." [50]

Whatever disagreement about aesthetic issues one might hold over images in an article, using the reason of race is not cause for removal. Anyway as a discussion on the talkpage was had, editors noted to you [51] that the stable version was best until things were resolved. I did the responsible thing, reverted my edits and to do that was to go back to the stable version of the article of the time [52] until such time as a resolution could be found, which later happened. I have explained this to you over and over again (in some of the diffs you cite there show). What you took from that is your issue.Resnjari (talk) 21:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I am worried with Resnjari's tagteaming with Ktrimi that does not only damage the featured articles, but also is POV pushing in a number of articles with politically sensitive content in them. A blatant case of this is the Albania-Greece relations where Resnjari is not only accepting Ktrimi's POV demands, but also backing him unconditionally, causing the later to become more arrogant and stonewall talk page discussions. The admins are ought to do something about that. We had to even call for a RfC just to get ourselves unstuck from the stonewalling attempts of Resnjari and Ktrimi who are using WP:CONSENSUS in a very abusive WP:OWN way, which every time is used to block any content they don't like, from being added to the article, with the logic of: "If we don't agree, the content won't be added". Please someone do something about these editors. We have had it enough. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 19:28, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Its very disappointing that such a misrepresentation of talkpage discussions and the process of consensus on the Albania-Greece relations are used here. @Ktrimi991 was the one who got page protection from administrators [53], [54] after attempts to push POV by other editors into the article were made. Not only that it was an administrator who intervened [55] to stop unilateral POV additions of content to the article while complex discussions where being held in the talkpage. @Ktrimi991 was the one who also added a 3 option to the current RFC and it was you reported him at ANI [56] over that and later being advised over there [57] that nothing wrong was done and was part of usual practise in such things. As for the other things, words like "abusive" in no way go toward building good faith and is sad. What more can one say apart from its really disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 21:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't even try portray yourself and Ktrimi as being the victims and the ones who respect Wikipedia's rules. You both violated several other rules and before I intervened to the dispute. Have you forgotten how Ktrimi in fact broke the 3RR rule? Have you forgotten my warning to him on his talk page [58]? and article protection was raised by Admin EdJohnston [59] right after I messaged him [60] on his talk page. Not that it matters, but get your facts straight.

Thing here is, both of you aren't seem to be regretting anything about your attitude and actions. THIS is what is disappointing. The Admins can access the History log and make their own conclusions about your actions. Here I am merely pointing to the problems you have caused to other editors who tried to contribute to the articles without your constant reverts and stonewalling. You should be disappointed with yourself, not me.

You are noted as a capable editor, you have contributed to Wikipedia, and we appreciate your work on Balkan topic areas such as Bosnian, Macedonian and Albanian articles. But your attitude and behavior is what causing all this grievance to other editors. If you want to talk about disappointment, it is the fact that you aren't learning from your previous bans. Have you forgotten what the admins who banned you, have advised you??? You really should DROP this behavior. --👧🏻 SilentResident 👧🏻 ^{(talk ✉️ | contribs 📝)} 23:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no. @Ktrimi did it first in getting administrator protection and informed you [61] of that when you did so later yourself. Time differences in diffs draw that out. Its disappointing the language and tone you have used here. Please also avoid loaded language like "being the victims" etc. I nor @Ktrimi991 ever stated this. This thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has with certain editors. Indeed administrators can access the history log of any page and the edits speak for themselves. My attitude and behavior can be subject to interpretation as i see you have demonstrated, but wp:idontlikeit reasons of other people's edits do not suffice.Resnjari (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's suprising that the editor in question instead of offering a sencere apology is now "launching a full offensive" accusing dozens of editors. I doubt if this wall of text can turn him immune towards cryslat clear 3rr violations.Alexikoua (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As i said before this thread is not about WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS over perceived issues one has personally with certain editors. Misrepresenting my words as accusations against other editors and so on is disappointing.Resnjari (talk) 13:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Anchor Bay Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:4C4:4000:C420:110C:6C7C:E633:17DB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:54, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "This is unfair! It was now Starz!"
2. 02:51, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Annoying lier who likes to think Anchor Bay is now Lionsgate!

NO! It’s now Starz Distribution!"

1. 02:47, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "This is WRONG! That’s it! Blocked from my channel forever!"
2. Consecutive edits made from 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) to 02:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
   1. 02:38, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Removed: Starz

Rewritten: Lionsgate

This is Wrong! For the last time, Anchor Bay Entertainment was a home entertainment subsidiary of Starz Inc.! If I hear that it was subsidiaried by Lionsgate one more time, I will block you forever!"

1. 1. 02:39, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "And also it was NOT a production company!!! Stupid Lionsgate fantard!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:48, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (using Twinkle)"
2. 02:52, 7 January 2019 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (using Twinkle)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• 2601:4c4:4000:c420::/64 Blocked – for a period of 1 month by Ad Orientem and Page protected by Scott Burley. Linguist111^{my talk page} 04:41, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Lander, Wyoming (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 107.1.118.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [62]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [63]
2. [64]
3. [65]
4. [66]

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

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

Comments: