EdJohnston (talk | contribs) →User:MUDDASSIR BHATI reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked): Update the header |
Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 discussion(s) to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive369) (bot |
||
Line 12: | Line 12: | ||
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. --> |
NOTE: THE *BOTTOM* IS THE PLACE FOR NEW REPORTS. --> |
||
== [[User:My very best wishes]] reported by [[User:Paul Siebert]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Mass killings under Communist regimes}} Per [[WP:ARBEE]] the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Eastern_Europe#Log_of_article-level_discretionary_sanctions article is under 1RR] <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|My very best wishes}} This user has been [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844457640&oldid=844454499 duly notified] that the article where the violation occurred is under [[WP:DS]] |
|||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' before the first incident: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843112881&oldid=843103611] and , before the second incident: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&oldid=844217273] |
|||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' |
|||
<u>First incident:</u> |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843707658&oldid=843707429 1st revert, 22:42, 30 May 2018] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843725747&oldid=843724310 2nd revert, 01:37, 31 May 2018] |
|||
<u>Second incident:</u> |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844233398&oldid=844217273 1st revert, 15:27, 3 June 2018] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844280867&oldid=844275840 2nd revert, 22:19, 3 June 2018] |
|||
'''Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:''' [link] |
|||
* A warning about the first violation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843743969&oldid=843726588 It was article's talk page warning, but MVBW joined this discussion, so they may be deemed properly informed (see below)] |
|||
* A warning about a second violation: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844318887&oldid=844232807] |
|||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' |
|||
First incident: |
|||
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843743969&oldid=843726588 I created a talk page section devoted to the breach of NPOV, where I noted that 1RR violation was committed by MVBW]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843782263&oldid=843744388 MVBW's refused to self-revert]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843785533&oldid=843783065 the dispute continued]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843786156&oldid=843785902 more]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843791688&oldid=843791294 I request MVBW to self-revert again]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843797311&oldid=843796975 MVBW's refuses]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843797706&oldid=843797693 I was trying to persuade them to self-revert]; [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843798317&oldid=843797737 final MVBW's refusal to self-revert]. |
|||
Second incident: |
|||
A fragment of the talk page discussion [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844311163&oldid=844282548] (the whole discussion is too long and frequently returns to the original argument, which makes difficult to keep assuming a good faith) |
|||
MVBW's talk page discussion: |
|||
[[User:Vanamonde93|Vanamonde]] [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844367674&oldid=844232807 warns MVBW about 1RR violation, and MVBW refuses to concede it], Vanamonde [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844369048&oldid=844367674 explains the violation was not technical], MVBW blames Vanamunde [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844380376&oldid=844369048 in abusing admin's privileges], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844416257&oldid=844380376 I am explaining MVBW that Vanamunde is acting as a user, not an admin, provide diffs of MVBW's second violation and request to self-revert]. MVBW [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844418905&oldid=844416257 rejects any accusations and advises me to ask uninvolved admin's opinion]. |
|||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> |
|||
It is possible to argue that the <u>first incident</u> was not a 1RR violation, because the section was not deleted but moved to the bottom. However, that changed the content, and other users (including me) objected to this move (see a diffs of a talk page discussion above), because that would give an undue weight to some viewpoint at cost of another one. Therefore, despite it was a move, it was a ''significant'' change. |
|||
The <u>second incident</u> was related to two different sections of the article. These two parts are logically connected (the texts in the lead and the main article related to the same issue), and these MVBW's reverts served to the same goal: to remove or minimize any mention of criticism of one source (The Black Book of Communism, aka BB) despite numerous evidences of a widespread criticism of this source presented on [[talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes#BB reviews|the talk page]]. Therefore, it would be incorrect to say these two reverts were unrelated. In addition, the first revert changed the lead, where even a single word matters. That means not only these two reverts are a technical breach of the 1RR restriction, they significantly change the article, and they are a part of long lasting attempts of MVBW to act against our neutrality policy. The whole discussion on the article's talk page is too long to be placed here, and, since it regularly returning to the original point, I come to a conclusion that the problem cannot be resolved without an external help. |
|||
Since [[User:My very best wishes]] maintains they are not edit warring [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844418905&oldid=844416257 and advised me to ask uninvolved admin's opinion] on that matter, I reluctantly came here. |
|||
before posting, I formally notified MVBW about DS, but they do not take this request seriously: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844462663&oldid=844453953]. Taking into account that MVBW posted the same note on my talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APaul_Siebert&type=revision&diff=840948096&oldid=840931800], I assume they are aware of these rules. MVBW is currently active, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&curid=23849770&diff=844464482&oldid=844454184], but I see no sign they are taking my request seriously.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 04:44, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Reply'''. Sorry, it was not my intention to edit war on this page. I made many edits on this page recently, probably more than anyone else [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&offset=&limit=500&action=history], but made probably only a couple reverts (I think). Speaking about diffs by Paul, |
|||
"First incident": |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843707658&oldid=843707429 1st diff] - that was removal of sourced text, but not to any previously existing version; no one recently inserted text that I removed. The removal was previously discussed on article talk page, and Paul agreed to remove it [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=842698968&oldid=842697272] - see edit my summary (or at least it was my understanding that Paul agreed). |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843725747&oldid=843724310 2nd diff] - that was move of the text to a place ''where it never was before''; see my edit summary. How this can be seen a revert? |
|||
"Second incident" |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844233398&oldid=844217273 1st diff] - this can be viewed as my revert; it was previously discussed on article talk page, Paul agreed [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=844153446&oldid=844071859] (or at least it was my understanding that Paul agreed), and no one else objected. |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=844280503&oldid=844275840 2nd diff]. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844283743&oldid=844275840 Here is it] after an additional automatic edit by bot. My intention was not to undo anything, but to reduce redundancies and explain/summarize more clearly for an ordinary reader what the sources tell. Note that the 2nd paragraph essentially repeats the first. Hence I merged two paragraphs together and rephrased three points of the criticism. That version or anything even remotely close to that version never existed in the history of the page. How it can be seen a revert? |
|||
As a note of order, Paul has already complained to Arbcom about the same [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&diff=prev&oldid=843859784], and it was rejected by Arbcom. He also started [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes#???_+_POV_pushing this thread], which I think was a talk page guideline violation on his part (but it was about very same edits). I asked Paul do not do it before [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Siebert&oldid=843188652#WP:_NPA]. |
|||
I do not care too much about this page and voluntarily agree not to edit it during at least a week. However, honestly, I think this is actually a "battleground" request by Paul, given all his other actions. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 12:10, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Re: "''that was removal of sourced text, but not to any previously existing version; no one recently inserted text that I removed.''" MVBW has already been duly informed that removal of a significant amount of a text is a revert [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844369048&oldid=844367674], so I see no reason why they pretend they are unaware of the revert policy. |
|||
:Re: "''The removal was previously discussed on article talk page, and Paul agreed to remove it''" Yes, I agreed, provided but only provided, that more prominence will be given to this subject, which has never been done. I already explained this misunderstanding earlier [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=843785533&oldid=843783065]. |
|||
:Re: "''move of the text to a place ''where it never was before''; see my edit summary. How this can be seen a revert? ''" Again, a revert [[WP:3RR| means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material]]. The text has been removed, which means the previous action was reverted. |
|||
:Re: "''it was my understanding that Paul agreed).''" The understanding was wrong, and I explained that repeatedly on the talk page. The diff provided by MVBW explicitly says that I proposed to ''add'' two sentences describing a controversy, whereas MVBW removed the mention of controversy completely. My words were taken out of a context and blatantly misinterpreted. |
|||
:Re: "'' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&type=revision&diff=844283743&oldid=844275840 Here is it] after an additional automatic edit by bot. My intention was not to undo anything, but to reduce redundancies''" That is not true. One reference to an important source was removed completely, the explanation of the flaw in statistical method was removed, and the statement that this method leads to a systematic bias towards high values was removed, and replaced with the statement that the method was inaccurate. This changed a meaning significantly, and this change was biased. |
|||
:Re: "''Paul has already complained to Arbcom about the same''" That is not true. I ''never'' complained myself, I commented on someone else's complaint. I supported it because I thought another user's complaint was justified.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 13:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::In both "incidents" my 2nd edit (2nd diff) does not ''reverse'' any previous edits, and it was not intended to reverse/revert anything. To the contrary, those were edits directed toward finding a compromise: moving the materials to a more appropriate place and rephrase of a newly inserted material to make it more understandable and consistent with the sources. You may think that my edit "changed the meaning significantly". But even if you are right, that was not a revert. First edit in the first "incident" arguably was also not a revert. [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::In addition, when I simply posted a DS notice on your talk page [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Paul_Siebert&diff=840948096&oldid=840931800], you promised me some kind of a retaliation [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=840949980&oldid=840949287]. Is that what you are doing here? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::A [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=844473814&oldid=844462663 recent post] at your talk page demonstrates other editors disagree with your interpretation of your actions.--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 14:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:::With regard to that [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMy_very_best_wishes&type=revision&diff=840949980&oldid=840949287], I was unaware of the recent change in the DS policy, and I didn't know that formally you were allowed to put this notice even if there were no actions from my side. However, I still believe it was an unprovoked and unfriendly act. You perfectly know (since the times when you were editing under a different name) that I was aware of [[WP:ARBEE]], which was initiated after your conflict with another user, and I knew about restrictions applied to the users who are editing in the EE related area. Therefore, there were no ''practical'' reason to inform me about a subject we both are perfectly aware of, so I had a reason to consider that your act as non-friendly. With regard to "retaliation", I can only respond: "You say".--[[User:Paul Siebert|Paul Siebert]] ([[User talk:Paul Siebert|talk]]) 14:41, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::::It was you who filed this request. I did not do anything. BTW, you did not answer my question. In [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes&diff=843948768&oldid=843947794 this edit] you said to me: "''you are persistently pushing us towards''" ANI filing (this filing?). Who are "us"? [[User:My very best wishes|My very best wishes]] ([[User talk:My very best wishes|talk]]) 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:A bicyclette]] reported by [[User:Mztourist]] (Result: Warned user(s)) == |
== [[User:A bicyclette]] reported by [[User:Mztourist]] (Result: Warned user(s)) == |
||
Line 150: | Line 74: | ||
*{{AN3|w}} [[Operation Junction City]] was the article specifically called out. There, {{u|Mztourist}} removed some material. {{u|A bicyclette}} re-added a form of it a few days after (a revert) which was met by three reverts by Mztourist and three more reverts by A bicyclette. The other articles similarly show the two editors edit warring with each other with no third party getting involved with the reverts. Contrary to what was claimed, no links have been provided that point to a discussion where consensus was achieved. Both editors are '''warned''' that ''any'' further edit warring may result in blocks. Find a way to resolve your disputes through discussion - use [[WP:DRN]], the MILHIST talk page, or another venue. The editor who takes the initiative to post a '''neutral''' summary of the disputes at one of these venues will probably looked upon favorably by admins should another incident arise. [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|w}} [[Operation Junction City]] was the article specifically called out. There, {{u|Mztourist}} removed some material. {{u|A bicyclette}} re-added a form of it a few days after (a revert) which was met by three reverts by Mztourist and three more reverts by A bicyclette. The other articles similarly show the two editors edit warring with each other with no third party getting involved with the reverts. Contrary to what was claimed, no links have been provided that point to a discussion where consensus was achieved. Both editors are '''warned''' that ''any'' further edit warring may result in blocks. Find a way to resolve your disputes through discussion - use [[WP:DRN]], the MILHIST talk page, or another venue. The editor who takes the initiative to post a '''neutral''' summary of the disputes at one of these venues will probably looked upon favorably by admins should another incident arise. [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
::Obviously I do not agree with your decision, but as suggested have opened the following: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties]] [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 10:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC) |
::Obviously I do not agree with your decision, but as suggested have opened the following: [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages]] and [[Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties]] [[User:Mztourist|Mztourist]] ([[User talk:Mztourist|talk]]) 10:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:OxfordLaw]] reported by [[User:Wikaviani]] (Result: OxfordLaw warned ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|OxfordLaw}} |
|||
'''Previous version reverted to:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen&action=history] |
|||
'''Diffs of the user's reverts:''' |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen&type=revision&diff=844538682&oldid=844520995&diffmode=source] |
|||
# [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen&type=revision&diff=844544248&oldid=844539670&diffmode=source] |
|||
'''Diff of edit warring / 1RR warning:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:OxfordLaw&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=844547995&oldid=844438637&diffmode=source] |
|||
'''Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:''' [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen&type=revision&diff=844240939&oldid=844235292&diffmode=source] |
|||
<u>'''Comments:'''</u> <br /> |
|||
Hi, user OxfordLaw broke the 1RR rule when he edited two times within 3 hours this article : [[Saudi Arabian-led intervention in Yemen]]. Moreover, the reported user makes [[WP:BATTLEGROUND]] comments in his edit summaries, example : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Saudi_Arabian-led_intervention_in_Yemen&type=revision&diff=844544248&oldid=844539670&diffmode=source], i quote : "Moreover as an Iranian you are hardly neutral in this dispute given the Saudi Arabia-Iran proxy war. I as a Italian am neutral on the other hand". Please note that this editor has a long list of warnings on his [[User talk:OxfordLaw|talk page]] and has already been blocked. More, OxfordLaw has also broken the 1RR rule [[Yemeni Civil War (2015–present)|here]] : [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)&type=revision&diff=844538922&oldid=844438518&diffmode=source], [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Yemeni_Civil_War_(2015%E2%80%93present)&type=revision&diff=844543619&oldid=844540678&diffmode=source]. I would appreciate if an admin could take a look at this user's editing profile who seems to be [[WP:NOTHERE]], according to me. Best regards.---[[User:Wikaviani|Wikaviani]] ([[User talk:Wikaviani|talk]]) 17:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
I don't know what you are talking about in regards to some 1RR rule but I merely corrected obvious and continuous vandalism. The Al-Jazeera article does not contain a single evidence of proof whatsoever other than empty Houthi claims which cannot be a source on its own. Moreover Al-Jazeera is a state-owned propaganda channel (at best) owned by the Qatari state/regime and this news channel has an extensive history of making up false news against their political opponents (Qatar's rivals) whether it be Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Bahrain, UAE or numerous other countries, especially since the Saudi Arabia-Qatar proxy conflict began in June 2017. |
|||
Moreover removing the most neutral source on those entire Wikipedia pages (Yemen Data Project) without reason cannot be considered as anything other than vandalism. |
|||
As for my harmless comment about your own SELF-PROCLAIMED descent and identity (Iranian), what I wrote is kind of accurate given the history of those Wikipedia pages. Iranian users have a long history of disrupting those pages and similar pages related to Arabs. Most likely vice versa too BTW. I on the other hand am completely neutral as a Southern European. However I have been interested in Yemen for over one decade and I have visited the country thus the conflict interests me and I try to follow it. BTW for years (ever since March 2015) the same Wikipedia pages (infested by people with an agenda - no names mentioned) have hilariously claimed that only 350 Houthi rebels/terrorists have been killed which is absolutely hilarious when their casualties are in the 1000's by all neutral accounts. Whether killed by the Yemeni military, anti-Houthi rebels or the Arab coalition. |
|||
If Al-Jazeera, PressTV and similar state propaganda channels are used as sources, we might as well use state owned news from Saudi Arabia who likewise (most likely) make outrageous claims that cannot be backed up by facts unlike for instance my NEUTRAL source (Yemen Data Project) or common sense (no way have only 350 Houthis been killed since September 2014) as claimed for YEARS on those Wikipedia pages. A clear sign of bias. |
|||
BTW those Yemen maps should also be updated. The Yemeni army and the Arab Coalition are on the outskirts of Hudaydah and less than 40 km away from Sana'a proper.--[[User:OxfordLaw|OxfordLaw]] ([[User talk:OxfordLaw|talk]]) 17:34, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
As for my previous edit warnings, I was by all accounts right and correct in what I was doing (as it turned out) and this has nothing to do with what is going on currently.--[[User:OxfordLaw|OxfordLaw]] ([[User talk:OxfordLaw|talk]]) 17:35, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Your comments about the nationalities of other users are completely irrelevant, i am Iranian but this does not mean that i'm biased about any topic here. Also, you should have given your arguments on the talk pages of the articles instead of edit warring.---<!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Wikaviani|Wikaviani]] ([[User talk:Wikaviani#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Wikaviani|contribs]]) </small> |
|||
Moreover I find it hilarious that certain editors here (including this Iranian user who opened up this complaint against me) considers an empty Al-Jazeera article that contains no proof whatsoever other than Houthi claims and empty (unsubstantiated claims) as some kind of "holy grail" while my neutral source (Yemen Data Project) is deleted. We know that Houthi casualties have been in the 1000's as per the Yemen Data Project and countless of other sources (a simple Google search will confirm this as well as simple logic (3.5 years of fighting against a much stronger adversary) but their casualties are given as "unknown". Meanwhile Saudi Arabian casualties (although officially given as around 500) are DOUBLED due to an unsubstantiated Al-Jazeeera (of all media) article! That's rather "interesting" and then I am going to pretend that this users identity (Iranian) does not play a role whatsoever here. I am sorry but I am not buying it.--[[User:OxfordLaw|OxfordLaw]] ([[User talk:OxfordLaw|talk]]) 17:42, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Kindly take a look at this {{userlinks|EdJohnston}} --[[User:OxfordLaw|OxfordLaw]] ([[User talk:OxfordLaw|talk]]) 17:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
You were taking sides in this edit warring while you are not a party to this edit conflict. You took part in this conflict in favor of the unsubstantiated (Al-Jazeera article) Houthi rebel claim and thus against the Yemeni government and the Arab Coalition, Saudi Arabia included, which given your self-proclaimed identity and the current KSA-Iran proxy war, I took as a sign of bias which you cannot blame me for, given the disruptive history of Iranian users on those 3 Wikipedia pages and Arab-related context on Wikipedia. I am sure that Arab users are guilty of this behavior the other way around as well. I do not know as I am not an editor on Middle Eastern topics in general at all. I just have an interest in Yemen and Arabia and its ancient history and a few current day affairs. |
|||
Lastly, I explained all of my edits in detail while the other party did not explain anything. That's not exactly a sign of cooperation.--[[User:OxfordLaw|OxfordLaw]] ([[User talk:OxfordLaw|talk]]) 18:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
Anyway those Wikipedia pages are highly biased and have a long history of ridiculous claims in regards to this conflict. The current maps used are a perfect example of this. As explained by the Hudaydah and Sana'a examples. |
|||
A NEUTRAL source that could be used are the maps originating from Risk Intelligence which is based in Denmark and a neutral party again (just like the Yemen Data Project that I used). |
|||
https://twitter.com/riskstaff?lang=es --[[User:OxfordLaw|OxfordLaw]] ([[User talk:OxfordLaw|talk]]) 18:33, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::: Don't know where to begin. First of all Twitter is not a Source. Secondly, Two important international media; The Independent and Aljazeera have reporter KSA losses higher than 1,000. Dont tell me The Independent its a Houthi related media. |
|||
OxfordLaw you have been blocked in the past for editing in Saudi Arabia Articles. Stop your un constructive behaviour.[[User:Mr.User200|Mr.User200]] ([[User talk:Mr.User200|talk]]) 18:47, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
:Again, the fact that i'm Iranian does not mean any bias in my edits. Al-Jazeera and the independent are two reliable soures, whether you like it or not. Also, you should read a tuto about how to properly indent a thread on Wikipedia. Regards.---[[User:Wikaviani|Wikaviani]] ([[User talk:Wikaviani|talk]]) 19:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*{{AN3|w}} {{u|OxfordLaw}} has now been notified of applicable general sanctions and should be '''fully''' aware of the editing restrictions in the area. Further violations or calling good-faith edits vandalism will likely result in a block or topic ban. [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 3:07 pm, Today (UTC−4) |
|||
== [[User:Kavitha Swaminathan]] reported by [[User:Abesam]] (Result: Both blocked 31 hours) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Thoothukudi massacre}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Kavitha Swaminathan}} |
|||
The user has vandalised my talk page, has made personal attacks and baseless accusations and also has repeatedly vandalised the article by adding factually incorrect information irrespective of repeated warnings. I have also created a section in the talk page of the article. The editor seems to be unaware of many Wikipedia policies |
|||
Edit warring is done by [[User:Abesam]]. Without making any discussion in talk page [[User:Abesam]] removed entire content. I wonder if he can make threatening messages in my talk page and replying to him would become a vandal or personal attack. [[User:Abesam]] is calling others edits without even looking at the citations which is uncivil. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kavitha Swaminathan|Kavitha Swaminathan]] ([[User talk:Kavitha Swaminathan#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kavitha Swaminathan|contribs]]) 19:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
Please refrain from personal attacks against editors. The paragraph that you are adding and the citations that you are providing for the said paragraph are not at all relatable. Your paragraph says one thing and the citations speak of something that is totally different. Refrain from adding factually incorrect content deliberately. Admins, please go through the history of the issue to know who is at fault. [[User:Abesam|Abesam]] ([[User talk:Abesam|talk]]) 19:29, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:Abesam|Abesam]] has straight away provided me with threat to block me and has completely deleted a paragraph without any explanation.Please be specific about what i say and what that citation say. POV pushing by[[User:Abesam|Abesam]]. What i have said and the citation i have provided is same. Provide equal chance for debating rather than threatening to block user. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Kavitha Swaminathan|Kavitha Swaminathan]] ([[User talk:Kavitha Swaminathan#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Kavitha Swaminathan|contribs]]) 19:40, 5 June 2018 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|||
*{{AN3|bb|31 hours}} {{ping|Kavitha Swaminathan|Abesam}} Both of you can use this time to read [[WP:NOTVAND]] [[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 19:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Detektyw z Wilna]] and [[User:Ke an]] reported by [[User:Alexis Jazz]] (Result: Both warned) == |
== [[User:Detektyw z Wilna]] and [[User:Ke an]] reported by [[User:Alexis Jazz]] (Result: Both warned) == |
||
Line 242: | Line 99: | ||
:::There was discussion, but not constructive discussion, at [[WT:DRN|the DRN talk page]]. It has been closed and they were told to go to a conduct forum. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC) |
:::There was discussion, but not constructive discussion, at [[WT:DRN|the DRN talk page]]. It has been closed and they were told to go to a conduct forum. [[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] ([[User talk:Robert McClenon|talk]]) 02:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
*'''Result:''' [[User:Detektyw z Wilna]] and [[User:Ke an]] are '''both warned'''. If either of them makes a further revert at [[Corruption in Lithuania]] without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC) |
*'''Result:''' [[User:Detektyw z Wilna]] and [[User:Ke an]] are '''both warned'''. If either of them makes a further revert at [[Corruption in Lithuania]] without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked. [[User:EdJohnston|EdJohnston]] ([[User talk:EdJohnston|talk]]) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:82.113.123.4]] reported by [[User:G.scaringi]] (Result: Blocked 36 hours) == |
|||
;Page: {{pagelinks|Democratic Party (Italy)}} |
|||
;User being reported: {{userlinks|82.113.123.4}} |
|||
;Previous version reverted to: |
|||
;Diffs of the user's reverts: |
|||
# {{diff2|844633506|03:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "See above" |
|||
# {{diff2|844618822|01:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "This section is defunct because it is empty. And I will erase it by all means necessary." |
|||
# {{diff2|844616619|00:52, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "It goes away" |
|||
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: |
|||
# {{diff2|844627013|02:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on [[:Democratic Party (Italy)]]. ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
|||
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: |
|||
;<u>Comments:</u> |
|||
*{{AN3|b|36 hours}} [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 09:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Castop]] reported by [[User:Alexis Jazz]] (Result: Blocked) == |
== [[User:Castop]] reported by [[User:Alexis Jazz]] (Result: Blocked) == |
||
Line 286: | Line 122: | ||
::Thanks. {{reply|NeilN}} all the others have a source somewhere in their article, just search their article pages for "soundcloud rap". (also see [[Talk:SoundCloud rap#List of artists]]) Any artist that isn't notable enough to have at least one fanboy to write a stub about them isn't notable enough for that list anyway. I'm not even putting the bar very high for what is an adequate source or what is notable, but for Little Yachty no source is provided at all. [[User:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]]) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
::Thanks. {{reply|NeilN}} all the others have a source somewhere in their article, just search their article pages for "soundcloud rap". (also see [[Talk:SoundCloud rap#List of artists]]) Any artist that isn't notable enough to have at least one fanboy to write a stub about them isn't notable enough for that list anyway. I'm not even putting the bar very high for what is an adequate source or what is notable, but for Little Yachty no source is provided at all. [[User:Alexis Jazz|Alexis Jazz]] ([[User talk:Alexis Jazz|talk]]) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
:::{{ping|Alexis Jazz}} Thanks. You may want to copy this explanation to Castop's talk page. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
:::{{ping|Alexis Jazz}} Thanks. You may want to copy this explanation to Castop's talk page. --[[User:NeilN|<b style="color:navy">Neil<span style="color:red">N</span></b>]] <sup>[[User talk:NeilN|<i style="color:blue">talk to me</i>]]</sup> 20:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:213.205.194.242]] reported by [[User:Davey2010]] (Result: Blocked) == |
|||
;Page: {{pagelinks|List of Ackley Bridge characters}} |
|||
;User being reported: {{userlinks|213.205.194.242}} |
|||
;Previous version reverted to: |
|||
;Diffs of the user's reverts: |
|||
# {{diff2|844675136|11:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 844674874 by [[Special:Contributions/Grangehilllover|Grangehilllover]] ([[User talk:Grangehilllover|talk]]) discuss on the talk page the" |
|||
# {{diff2|844674814|11:11, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 844674776 by [[Special:Contributions/Davey2010|Davey2010]] ([[User talk:Davey2010|talk]])" |
|||
# {{diff2|844674764|11:10, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "I’ve added the characters back in. You referring to this as “yours” just shows you’re too emotionally attached to the untidy version to be neutral" |
|||
# {{diff2|844674269|11:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 844674159 by [[Special:Contributions/Grangehilllover|Grangehilllover]] ([[User talk:Grangehilllover|talk]])" |
|||
# {{diff2|844673988|11:01, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Undid revision 844673418 by [[Special:Contributions/Grangehilllover|Grangehilllover]] ([[User talk:Grangehilllover|talk]])" |
|||
# {{diff2|844673312|10:53, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "This layout is simpler, easier to edit, doesn’t list every relationship unnecessarily, is in alphabetical order (split by s1 and s2). Stop letting your perceived ownership of the article cloud your judgement." |
|||
# {{diff2|844672971|10:48, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Better layout" |
|||
# {{diff2|844668293|09:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "" |
|||
# {{diff2|844667828|09:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Tidied up" |
|||
;Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: |
|||
# {{diff2|844672725|10:46, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Disruptive editing on [[:List of Ackley Bridge characters]]. ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
|||
# {{diff2|844673061|10:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Edit warring on [[:List of Ackley Bridge characters]]. ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
|||
# {{diff2|844673081|10:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)}} "Warning: Three-revert rule on [[:List of Ackley Bridge characters]]. ([[WP:TW|TW]])" |
|||
;Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: |
|||
;<u>Comments:</u> |
|||
The IP is edit warring over the layout - They came to my talkpage where I agreed with them and stated the layout would be changed however whilst I was doing said changes they decided to revert again, I've tried being lenient with the IP but they seem to be more interested in reverting than actually discussing it, Thanks, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 11:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*IP is now blocked by {{u|Oshwah}}. [[User:Hhkohh|Hhkohh]] ([[User talk:Hhkohh|talk]]) 11:33, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
*{{AN3|b}} [[User:Oshwah|<b><span style="color:#C00000">~Oshwah~</span></b>]]<sup><small><b>[[User_talk:Oshwah|<span style="color:blue">(talk)</span>]] [[Special:Contributions/Oshwah|<span style="color:green">(contribs)</span>]]</b></small></sup> 11:35, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
::Ah thanks all, I thought for a second they actually stopped but it turns out they were actually blocked! </facepalm>, Thanks all, –[[User:Davey2010|<span style="color: blue;">'''Davey'''</span><span style="color: orange;">'''2010'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Davey2010|<span style="color: navy;">'''Talk'''</span>]]</sup> 12:15, 6 June 2018 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:Darkknight2149]] reported by [[User:Udar55]] (Result: Both parties blocked for 36 hours) == |
== [[User:Darkknight2149]] reported by [[User:Udar55]] (Result: Both parties blocked for 36 hours) == |
Revision as of 02:09, 8 June 2018
Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
You must notify any user you have reported. You may use You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
|
User:A bicyclette reported by User:Mztourist (Result: Warned user(s))
Page: Operation Junction City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Cocoa Beach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Harrison (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Seward (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Sam Houston (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Operation Enterprise (Vietnam) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A bicyclette (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20], [21]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
User:A bicyclette has 3RR'ed on these 3 pages and is edit-warring here and on multiple other Vietnam War battle pages, adding US claims or more usually "US Claims: X killed (body count)" when I have repeatedly explained that you either have the wikilink to body count or claims, not both. I haven't bothered discussing this on the Talk page as I have been engaged in various other pointless discussions with A bicyclette on Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates where an Admin decision is awaited. In addition A bicyclette is making so many changes to so many pages without bothering to wikilink or properly create references, creating more work for other Users
Comments:
MZTOURIST is applying his own arbitrary standards, and obsessively monitoring pages and activities as if he was the admin. You'll notice every single edit I have made, he had the initial undo while giving arbitrary reasons for this. More so, he is accusing me of POV, being a sock puppet, and a host of other claims without any evidence and without an ounce of self-reflection about his own enormous POV. A bicyclette (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
@Mztourist and A bicyclette: The last time you two were here it was suggested that a discussion on the MILHIST talk page might be useful. Has such a discussion been opened? Also, Mztourist, where's the consensus for "you either have the wikilink to body count or claims, not both"? --NeilN talk to me 13:18, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- NeilN this is a multiple 3RR complaint, please address the 3RR which is supposed to be a hard rule regardless of any underlying merits. Mztourist (talk) 14:04, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Mztourist: Both of you are edit warring. Please answer my question. --NeilN talk to me 14:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- That may be true, but only A bicyclette has 3RRed multiple times, including after I initially raised this complaint and notified him. 3RR is a hard rule so I don't understand why you aren't enforcing it. As requested, here are the multiple places where the issues have been discussed since my last edit-warring complaint against A bicyclette: Talk:Body count#last edits, Talk:Body count#Discussion of Body Count Sourcing, Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates and Talk:Vietnam War#Current edit war. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Mztourist: I see a lot of back and forth between you two with Buckshot06 trying to get you both to stop edit warring. What article are you saying WP:3RR was breached? Not reached, but actually violated? --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have been dealing with a vast number of changes made by A bicyclette across multiple pages and Buckshot06 and I have recent history which hasn't helped with resolving the issues. The 3RR is Operation Junction City, but I am troubled by your "actually violated" distinction in light of the numerous different pages 3RRed and after he was warned. Mztourist (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC) 15:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Mztourist: I see a lot of back and forth between you two with Buckshot06 trying to get you both to stop edit warring. What article are you saying WP:3RR was breached? Not reached, but actually violated? --NeilN talk to me 15:05, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- That may be true, but only A bicyclette has 3RRed multiple times, including after I initially raised this complaint and notified him. 3RR is a hard rule so I don't understand why you aren't enforcing it. As requested, here are the multiple places where the issues have been discussed since my last edit-warring complaint against A bicyclette: Talk:Body count#last edits, Talk:Body count#Discussion of Body Count Sourcing, Talk:Vietnam War casualties#Official SRV estimates and Talk:Vietnam War#Current edit war. Mztourist (talk) 14:45, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Mztourist: Both of you are edit warring. Please answer my question. --NeilN talk to me 14:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to hear what A bicyclette and Buckshot06 have to say on this. A bicyclette, no more reverts until this is resolved please. Mztourist, just because you warned A bicyclette doesn't give you license to go up to WP:3RR on articles. Please remember you can be blocked for edit warring without breaking WP:3RR]. --NeilN talk to me 16:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- MZTourist has been consistently reverting my edits since I started editing pages, since day one e.g. he will find an arbitrary reason to revert it. I would literally link academic journals, news-week journals and so-on, and MZTOURIST will revert, I will undo, and since he initially reverted my edits he expects the onus is on me. Not only this, he will find edits I have made broadly, and delete entire contributions I have done if he has some disagreement, without discussion or modification, just reverting. MZTOURIST has failed consistently to discuss changes I have contributed towards, so I will not be bothered to try to reason with him given he has refused to even discuss any issues with me since day one. He has some very, very strange reasons provided for reverts as well which he has absolutely no authority towards. For example, I would place a picture that is dated "1962-1970" on the Vietnam War main page, and he will delete it for "not being the correct model". Or I will post news-week articles, academic journals or links about ROK-perpetrated massacres and he will delete it without even a discussion, because according to him they are POV. Yet he consistently allows POV sources, and consistently uses POV sources himself. He has deleted entire contributions of mine, because "they didn't cite a page" while he has consistently cited entire book and without discussing it. He has furthermore shown some pronounced racism, as I have literally linked articles were there is a witness testimony to a massacre written by newsweek/cnn/etc, which he deletes because "vietnamese-witnesses" are POV and selective according to him.
- This is the third edit warring claim made by MZTOURIST to the admin board, and he has obsessively decided he has control over all history related to the Vietnam War for some reason. The first two were rejected, and many of the edits he had made were reverted by other users for being unreasonable and strange. MZTOURIST has additionally accused me of being a sockpuppet, repeatedly, without any claims or evidence, and which was of course denied. MZTOURIST has a consistent history of attempted censorship and distortion, with very frequent complaints made against him and his intense, unreasonable stubbornness and lack of impartiality. MZTOURIST has somehow decided he will monitor and control many of these pages for a reason I'm not entirely sure of. A bicyclette (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
- Mztourist appears to believe that period U.S. official claims/estimates of enemies killed, wounded, or captured in battle during the Vietnam War can stand without comment, alteration, or amending via later scholarship. Frankly this is both bizarre and POV in view of the extensive discussion beginning in official circles by 1970, as I tried to raise with him at his talk page (User talk:Mztourist#Army War College Study on Military Professionalism, 1970, with a rude response), and in unofficial circles much earlier, that these Body counts were routinely inflated, partially due to pressure from Westmoreland and MacNamara as to how they wanted the war to proceed. The scholarly consensus now is that such battlefield claim numbers were routinely inflated. Mztourist has not introduced these counts into the articles in all cases - some were inserted by earlier editors - but trying to retain them without annotation or amendment is simply retaining the US official POV of the time, which is grossly outdated. I'm probably involved now due to my extensive efforts to reason with Mztourist, but otherwise, I would probably have taken admin action to stop the U.S. official military POV of the late 1960s/early 1970s being retained in this website without comment or annotation. I believe Mztourist needs to be prevented from trying to keep such counts there without a reference or (U.S. period claim) in an infobox. I recommend, at the very least, an admin warning, and administrator action should Mztourist continue to try and retain such claims without references or annotation in the articles.
- The other issue regarding Mztourist, as I've already hi-lighted earlier at AN/I, is that he disclaims without reservation the use of Vietnamese-language sources. They need to be treated with care, as do all sources, but definitely need to be considered. While Vietnamese sources can be biased, it's clear that both sides's sources suffer from this data, and should Mztourist continue trying to remove them totally, he would need to be sanctioned for that as well. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- A bicyclette has a particular POV on the Vietnam War that he wishes to push everywhere, which is that: (1) the US and its allies (especially the Koreans) killed large numbers of Vietnamese civilians and reported these as PAVN/VC deaths; (2) PAVN/VC casualty figures reported by everyone fighting them were wrong; and (3) PAVN/VC deaths were 849,018 and no other figure is correct. In support of these 3 points A bicyclette has made a vast number of edits across multiple pages over a very short time frame (what is his hurry?), providing often obscure sources and doesn't bother to reference them properly: [[22]] expecting others to tidy up after him or misrepresents what the source actually says: Talk:Operation Enterprise (Vietnam)#User:A bicyclette's recent changes. If he does provide a properly referenced WP:RS obviously it can stand, the problem is that many of his sources are Primary Sources and he expects us to accept Vietnamese accounts as being reliable and, in the case of his Vietnamese language casualty document, the only reliable source, ignoring all other WP:RS. In relation to the helicopter photo he added it in 3 different places with incorrect captions to try to support his arguments: [[23]], [[24]] and [[25]] and [[26]]. In addition he tries to delete WP:RS that disagrees with the thrust of his arguments e.g.: [[27]], [[28]] and [[29]]
- Buckshot06 you seem willing to overlook all of A bicyclette's behavior in this, but constantly want to WP:HOUND me. You yourself belatedly acknowledged the issues with A bicyclette's Vietnamese language casualty document and I suggested a resolution of the issue which you have done nothing about. In relation to body counts, you have made your views clear, while I have shown that the numbers actually underestimated PAVN/VC deaths, but putting that argument aside, regarding my supposed unwillingness to keep "counts there without a reference," if you looked at the edit warring here, you will see that I am fine with A bicyclette adding the Wikilink to body count or stating US "claims", however he insists on adding the formulation "US Claims: X killed (body count)" or even "US Source: X killed (body count claim)" that is like saying "US claim claim claim" any one of report/claim/source/body count makes it clear that this is the US account of PAVN/VC deaths, saying the same thing in 3-4 different ways is POV-pushing. Given the similarities to previous edits made by serial-sockers I have reported A bicyclette as a potential sockpuppet here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Dino nam and contrary to his assertion it has not been reviewed yet, I wish it was because it might spare me having to waste productive time on this.Mztourist (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- This forms a small part of my total contributions. I have cleaned up the entire Vietnam War Template Timeline, which was previously un-updated, I have cleaned up the commanders, nations and others in the main battlebox template, e.g. on its effects on popular culture, the contribution of women during the war, intelligence development, the role of countries in the war. I have added sections which were not previously there and significantly lacking as well. The original article seems to be badly written, and many of the articles are from straight up POV sources, the Korean article I found significantly lacking with verbatim copy and paste from a site called (talkingproud.com, "official" military history of specific forces and so-on). These should be considered POV, whereas I have cited actual academics in support of my points (Christian Appy, for one, alongside acaemic journals). Furthermore my application of "claims" in the recent string forms one part of this current edit war complaint, but this is standard across all articles.
- MZTOURIST is apparently too lazy to summarize articles and other articles, and would rather just copy-paste awkward text into the document while removing all context. My summarization of what MZTOURIST rips straight from AP and elsewhere, or me actually injecting previous edits which he deleted are reverted by him. For example the "casualties figures" was established previously, but MZTOURIST for some odd reason decides to change it to fit his narrative, using what ought to be considered agenda-slated, non academic sources (Mark Woodruff isn't reputable, he has a CLEAR agenda he is establishing). Neither is claiming that only US military sources the only factual bases, given their intense ideological underpinning.
- You should take note that MZTOURIST is the one that initially is undoing my edits, while not discussing reasons why. He has a clear narrative he wants to personally establish, e.g. on the body count page to try to support his contention that badly-written "official histories" ought to be considered the only truth.
- The absolute worse, most disgusting part I find about MZTOURIST is that he only engages in this when articles are on clearly established points on war crimes, atrocities, or other things which would repaint his pristine articles. For example he doesn't give a damn about terribly written, terribly POV paragraphs in the South Korea In The Vietnam War article about taekwondo, and other unsupported, unfactual statements. He has a strong history of suggesting deletions and editing out alleged massacres, even if they remain alleged there is literally no reason to suggest such things get deleted because it is according to him POV. This I find the most pathetic part about him. A bicyclette (talk) 06:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't even looked at what A bicyclette has done to Template:Vietnam War graphical timeline. Other users have also raised concerns at his edits on Vietnam war here: User talk:A bicyclette#Vietnam war article and yet nothing slows him down. Many of the supposed South Korean massacres are allegations based on minimal sources of questionable reliability, see: Binh Tai Massacre, Bình Hòa massacre, and Hà My massacre. A bicyclette believes that any Vietnamese testimony is incontrovertible truth of the existence and facts of any accused war crime, ignoring the fact that these are Primary Sources, the inherent bias of reports from a 1 party state with some of the lowest press freedom in the world and the AP statement that "The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and "An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations". The only proven massacre conducted by South Korean forces is the Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre. Yes, I have AfDed 2 supposed massacres here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre, both of which were indeed deleted for the reasons stated there. Finally we edit what we're interested in, I'm not interested in Taekwondo and have no responsibility to review or clean up any particular page that I didn't draft. Meanwhile I get accused of racism, prejudice, laziness etc. etc.Mztourist (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- The only complaint raised was one on images since I didn't properly understand the rules for using wikimedia images at the time. Every other complaint made was from MZTOURIST who was attempting to censor me, by accusing me of edit warring, consistently, being a sockpuppet and so-on.
- The links I posted were literally from Hankyoreh, Newsweek, CNN and other major news sources. Even if they are according to your own subjective terribly distorted worldview, this is not a reasonable grounds for deletion. The contrasting view you take is hilarious, in that you accept without question obscure internet websites written by some guy, but think that official news sources are distortive because they present facts you do not like. I mean you literally tried deleting my additions which cite academic sources. This is you deciding to take up policing of articles and things you don't like. This isn't even the only issue that I have. You just simply cannot accept any documents contrary to your own subjective view, and you have initiated the censorship originally, while falling back when you can't defend them while telling me to 'go discuss on milhist' or fall back to 3RR. Notice how other users reverted your changes to my articles? A bicyclette (talk) 09:26, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- You are misrepresenting again, User:Hohum's comments were about images, but User: GPRamirez5's comments were about adding content to an already overlong article. The whole problem is that your sources are not all WP:RS as you try to make them out to be. Many of them are fringe relying on implication and repetition, apparently unchecked "eyewitness" accounts, with very little hard detail, all the same reasons why those 2 other "massacre" pages were deleted.Mztourist (talk) 12:07, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't even looked at what A bicyclette has done to Template:Vietnam War graphical timeline. Other users have also raised concerns at his edits on Vietnam war here: User talk:A bicyclette#Vietnam war article and yet nothing slows him down. Many of the supposed South Korean massacres are allegations based on minimal sources of questionable reliability, see: Binh Tai Massacre, Bình Hòa massacre, and Hà My massacre. A bicyclette believes that any Vietnamese testimony is incontrovertible truth of the existence and facts of any accused war crime, ignoring the fact that these are Primary Sources, the inherent bias of reports from a 1 party state with some of the lowest press freedom in the world and the AP statement that "The AP was unable to independently confirm their claims" and "An additional 653 civilians were allegedly killed the same year by South Korean troops in neighboring Quang Ngai and Phu Yen provinces, according to provincial and local officials interviewed by the AP on a trip the government took two months to approve. As is routine with foreign reporters, several government escorts accompanied the AP staff. The AP was unable to search for documents that would back up the officials' allegations". The only proven massacre conducted by South Korean forces is the Phong Nhị and Phong Nhất massacre. Yes, I have AfDed 2 supposed massacres here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinh Xuan massacre, both of which were indeed deleted for the reasons stated there. Finally we edit what we're interested in, I'm not interested in Taekwondo and have no responsibility to review or clean up any particular page that I didn't draft. Meanwhile I get accused of racism, prejudice, laziness etc. etc.Mztourist (talk) 08:50, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
Apparently not content to just insult me here, A bicyclette has now come to my talk page to insult me: User talk:Mztourist#Pathetic Recent Behavior. Mztourist (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- You know I already stopped paying attention to what you consider WP:RS, because you aren't an admin. You still cite obscure books with clear motivates that you consider WP:RS and don't consider academic articles WP:RS. A bicyclette (talk) 13:29, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Warned Operation Junction City was the article specifically called out. There, Mztourist removed some material. A bicyclette re-added a form of it a few days after (a revert) which was met by three reverts by Mztourist and three more reverts by A bicyclette. The other articles similarly show the two editors edit warring with each other with no third party getting involved with the reverts. Contrary to what was claimed, no links have been provided that point to a discussion where consensus was achieved. Both editors are warned that any further edit warring may result in blocks. Find a way to resolve your disputes through discussion - use WP:DRN, the MILHIST talk page, or another venue. The editor who takes the initiative to post a neutral summary of the disputes at one of these venues will probably looked upon favorably by admins should another incident arise. NeilN talk to me 13:39, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Obviously I do not agree with your decision, but as suggested have opened the following: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#RfC regarding US claims of North Vietnamese and Vietcong casualties on Vietnam War battle pages and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Vietnamese Government document on Vietnam War casualties Mztourist (talk) 10:46, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Detektyw z Wilna and User:Ke an reported by User:Alexis Jazz (Result: Both warned)
Also see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 163#Talk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality.
Page: Corruption in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:
- Detektyw z Wilna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Ke an (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Edit war starts at this edit, both users have done more than 3 reverts.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: whole discussion on Talk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality.
I didn't edit Corruption in Lithuania, except for one edit to add {{NPOV}}. I'm not touching it. In fact, I'm not even interested!
Comments:
- Both User:Detektyw z Wilna and User:Ke an should be blocked for edit warring. They had a chance to work this out at the the DRN, got started there, and then lost interest. If you don't have the energy to finish the dispute resolution you should leave the article alone until agreement has been reached. This dispute has already been to ANI. You're not entitled to unlimited free use of the admin boards when nobody has the patience for a proper discussion. See WP:DR for some steps you should be following. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
I agree this is not a good situation. I tried to discuss to the issue on Talk:Corruption in Lithuania#Neutrality by providing quite exhaustive arguments. But didn't get the interest on discussing the issue at all - how could I discuss then? I looked at contribution history of Detektyw_z_Wilna and his behaviour and I consider it nothing more than a troll. -- Ke an (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Comment - This dispute was brought to DRN again, and was dismissed due to inadequate talk page discussion. When this case came to DRN and ANI in early April, I was unable to determine what was actually in dispute because the posts were too long, difficult to read and no one took the DRN advice to be civil and concise. I will point out again that Lithuania is still in Eastern Europe, both as usually defined and as defined by twentieth-century historians as those countries that were occupied by the Soviet Union. Therefore Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions are available. I suggest that both parties be given the required alert of DS, and if disruption continues, both parties be topic-banned from all posts related to Lithuania for the remainder of the twenty-first century. (The twentieth century ended. The Soviet Union lost the Cold War.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I have alerted both parties. If disruption resumes, I suggest that they be topic-banned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- There was discussion, but not constructive discussion, at the DRN talk page. It has been closed and they were told to go to a conduct forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Result: User:Detektyw z Wilna and User:Ke an are both warned. If either of them makes a further revert at Corruption in Lithuania without getting a prior consensus in their favor on the talk page they may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Castop reported by User:Alexis Jazz (Result: Blocked)
Page: SoundCloud rap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Castop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=842864029&oldid=842849763 (removed need for a source of Little Yachty being a SoundCloud rap genre artist)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=842921891&oldid=842918319 (removed need for a source again after I reverted above edit)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=843163890&oldid=843138688 (re-added Little Yachty)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SoundCloud_rap&diff=844643512&oldid=844613706 (re-added Little Yachty)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I asked them on their talk page to provide a source and warned them the next time we would meet would be here. No source is presented, they just keep reverting. Yes, this didn't happen in one day but I'm tired of this.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Castop&diff=844610387&oldid=842950404
Comments:
@Alexis Jazz: Why does that particular artist need a source and none of the others? --NeilN talk to me 14:40, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – 24 hours. Putting someone in the 'SoundCloud rap' genre should require a source. It is up to consensus what should be taken as an adequate source. Simply removing 'citation needed' doesn't address the problem. EdJohnston (talk) 14:56, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. @NeilN: all the others have a source somewhere in their article, just search their article pages for "soundcloud rap". (also see Talk:SoundCloud rap#List of artists) Any artist that isn't notable enough to have at least one fanboy to write a stub about them isn't notable enough for that list anyway. I'm not even putting the bar very high for what is an adequate source or what is notable, but for Little Yachty no source is provided at all. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Alexis Jazz: Thanks. You may want to copy this explanation to Castop's talk page. --NeilN talk to me 20:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. @NeilN: all the others have a source somewhere in their article, just search their article pages for "soundcloud rap". (also see Talk:SoundCloud rap#List of artists) Any artist that isn't notable enough to have at least one fanboy to write a stub about them isn't notable enough for that list anyway. I'm not even putting the bar very high for what is an adequate source or what is notable, but for Little Yachty no source is provided at all. Alexis Jazz (talk) 20:47, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Darkknight2149 reported by User:Udar55 (Result: Both parties blocked for 36 hours)
Page: Suspiria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkknight2149 (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:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
User Darkknight2149 has taken it upon himself to declare the film a "reboot". It is clearly a remake as it has the same central character, setting and plot. User refers to one instance of the director saying he couldn't remake the film, insisting that this is the basis for his claim. However, he is bending the director's words to fit his narrative (the director said he could not remake Argento's film's style). User started a talk discussion of it (on a different article) and battles anyone who disagrees. I corrected this info once and was reverted. I have reverted it only twice and user has reverted my edit three times, thus violating 3RR policy. Naturally, Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to this again. Udar55 (talk) 13:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- First of all, you were almost immediately informed that this was already on the Talk Page, yet you continued to revert (as plainly seen here). Then, as soon as you were warned to stop edit warring, you file a retaliatory report? Classic WP:BOOMERANG. You should have stopped the moment you were informed that the Talk Page discussion had already been opened, instead of continuing to revert.
- And, not that it matters here, but we have two primary sources blatantly stating it's not a remake, one third party source stating that it's a reboot, and I can easily dig up more. If you have a problem with the cited content, the onus would've been on you to go to the Talk Page from the start. DarkKnight2149 13:30, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't violate 3RR, you did. I can also dig up plenty of primary sources calling it a remake. And point to examples of other remakes on Wikipedia labeled as remakes and not reboots. Udar55 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to see those primary sources (which aren't and have never been listed). And considering I only reverted you three times on that day, that isn't a violation of 3RR. You were told from the start that this was already on the Talk Page, yet you insisted on repeatingly reverting, knowing full-well that this was being discussed. Then, when you were warned, you opened this report without warning in order to save your own skin. Like I said, this is an obvious WP:BOOMERANG. The fact that you had to add "Naturally, Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to this again" to your report pretty much says it all. DarkKnight2149 14:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring#The_three-revert_rule For your consideration: "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." You have done it four times starting on June 5, so I just did my third. Udar55 (talk) 16:04, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I would like to see those primary sources (which aren't and have never been listed). And considering I only reverted you three times on that day, that isn't a violation of 3RR. You were told from the start that this was already on the Talk Page, yet you insisted on repeatingly reverting, knowing full-well that this was being discussed. Then, when you were warned, you opened this report without warning in order to save your own skin. Like I said, this is an obvious WP:BOOMERANG. The fact that you had to add "Naturally, Wikipedia will turn a blind eye to this again" to your report pretty much says it all. DarkKnight2149 14:59, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't violate 3RR, you did. I can also dig up plenty of primary sources calling it a remake. And point to examples of other remakes on Wikipedia labeled as remakes and not reboots. Udar55 (talk) 14:32, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
My god, did you really just use the 3RR as an excuse to revert again??? If this doesn't take the piss, I don't know what will. DarkKnight2149 16:36, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Kleuske reported by User:Wikaviani (Result: Blocked for 48 hours)
Page: Shapur II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kleuske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [33]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]
Comments:
Hi, user:Kleuske is edit warring with me and HistoryofIran about the reliability of Sozomen (a christian ecclesiastical historian living in the 5th century) as a source for a massacre of christians by the Sasanian king Shapur ii (in the 4th century) while we spent hours discussing on the talk page (this is why i posted a link to the talk page instead of diffs in the "Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page" section, because there are just too many diffs...). We asked for Doug Weller's opinion, he nicely answered and said that we should include the disputed source because a lot of sources use him, but he said that this source looks like a personal essay more than an encyclopedic work and he also gave another source about the disputed source : [42]. Then i tried to find a compromise, taking into account what Doug said on the talk page (I left the disputed source in the article, but balanced this with including Doug's source about the disputed source) : [43], [44] and [45], but user:Kleuske straighly reverted my attempt too : [46]. Then i tried to preserve the source on the talk page, in order to include it later along with some reliable academic sources, per WP:WEIGHT : [47], but this too was rejected by user:Kleuske. I would appreciate if an admin could deal with this case. Thanks. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks Number 57, really. May i (or someone else) revert the article to a more consensual version (meaning preserving Sozomen's source on the talk page in order to include it back, just as Doug Weller said, along with reliable academic works) ? Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Wikaviani: Although Kleuske broke 3RR, it would appear that they were at least following BRD as they were reverting to a stable version of the article. The talk page discussion needs to conclude with some kind of consensus to either keep or remove the material. Doug Weller also stated that they were in favour of using the Sozen source, so it appear the outside input into the discussion supported Kleuske's view. As a result, I would advise that the current version should remain until there is consensus to remove it (which there isn't at the moment). If you need more input, start a WP:RfC. Number 57 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, thank you very much for your insight. Then i keep the Sozomen source within the article and i'll complete this with the addition of Doug's source about Sozomen, just like the attempt of compromise i posted above. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Number 57, I came tangentially via this thread, but I'm a little surprised both parties weren't blocked for edit warring since they both broke 3RR. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
- @Primefac: Wikaviani hasn't broken 3RR as far as I can see. Number 57 19:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Number 57, please note some harassement with edits like this : [48] and personal attack like this : [49] by a user who never participated to the discussion and who now comes up with irrelevant behavior. For me, the case is closed. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Four reverts in 27 hours. Technically you're right but not great behavior on Wikaviani's part. --NeilN talk to me 19:18, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hi Neil, do you mean i should have acted differently ? I'm open to any advice coming from honest editors.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Wikaviani: Can't see any harassment there. Your most recent revert was very ill-advised given what was said above. I'd strongly suggest you stop editing the article and wait for the discussion to conclude. Number 57 19:23, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Primefac: Wikaviani hasn't broken 3RR as far as I can see. Number 57 19:09, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Number 57, I came tangentially via this thread, but I'm a little surprised both parties weren't blocked for edit warring since they both broke 3RR. Primefac (talk) 19:05, 6 June 2018 (UTC) (please ping on reply)
- Ok, thank you very much for your insight. Then i keep the Sozomen source within the article and i'll complete this with the addition of Doug's source about Sozomen, just like the attempt of compromise i posted above. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 16:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Wikaviani: Although Kleuske broke 3RR, it would appear that they were at least following BRD as they were reverting to a stable version of the article. The talk page discussion needs to conclude with some kind of consensus to either keep or remove the material. Doug Weller also stated that they were in favour of using the Sozen source, so it appear the outside input into the discussion supported Kleuske's view. As a result, I would advise that the current version should remain until there is consensus to remove it (which there isn't at the moment). If you need more input, start a WP:RfC. Number 57 16:51, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
, No worries, this is precisely what i wanted to do, stop editing the article. But i have honestly tried to find a compromise, sorry if i failed to do so. Best regards.---Wikaviani (talk) 19:28, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Kiwicherryblossom reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Kiwicherryblossom warned)
Page: Douma chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kiwicherryblossom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]
Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Douma chemical attack#Should title be "Alleged Douma chemical attack"?
Comments:
Slow edit war, but an edit war nonetheless. Article is under Syrian Civil War sanctions; editor was notified of this here. Editor has gotten zero support for spamming the article with "alleged" as they propose/keep doing. Notified. VQuakr (talk) 22:57, 6 June 2018 (UTC)
- Warned Kiwicherryblossom, re-adding "alleged" or similar terms without getting consensus first will result in a topic ban. NeilN talk to me 01:16, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
User:MUDDASSIR BHATI reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Ranghar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- MUDDASSIR BHATI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 08:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "/* Notable Ranghar */"
- Consecutive edits made from 08:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC) to 08:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- 08:11, 7 June 2018 (UTC) ""
- 08:14, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "/* History and origin */"
- 07:56, 7 June 2018 (UTC) ""
- 07:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "/* History and origin */"
- 07:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC) ""
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 08:03, 7 June 2018 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Ranghar. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Unsourced caste POV. I will also drop a sanctions alert on their talk page if they haven't already had one. Sitush (talk) 08:28, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Alert left. They're still reverting, and have left a rather bizarre note on my talk page (so they obviously know user talk pages exist). - Sitush (talk) 09:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
User:Christian M. (2016) reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked 48 hours)
Page: Avengers: Infinity War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Christian M. (2016) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [54]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [61]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [62]
Comments:
Looks like a single editor is waging a unilateral edit war. So far Christian been reverted by four different editors so there is definitely no support for his edit as yet, regardless of its merit. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours NeilN talk to me 19:15, 7 June 2018 (UTC)