Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:47, 18 March 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 18:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:08, 18 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Guntur. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

False claim as Guntur is not a Metropolis. Vin09 (talk) 07:09, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Article semiprotected two months. Long-term warring by IP to add unsourced claim about the population of Guntur. EdJohnston (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Pashtun people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saladin1987 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6], [7], [8].

Comments: Saladin1987 is a pro-Pakistani/anti-Afghanistan POV pushing vandal who as his editing policy must always remove "Afghan" and "Afghanistan" from pages. [9], [10], [11], [12], [13] I avoid people who have negative energy circling around them but this one had to be reported at this time because he's destroying well written articles.

To me Saladin1987 is one of the most disruptive editors who hasn't been detected by admins since his last 1 month block. He appearantly hasn't learned his lesson. In addition to his extreme anti-Afghanistan pov pushing and vandalizing pages, I'm almost 100% certain that he is another sock puppet of User:Mar4d. They are both Pakistani ultra-nationalists editing from Australia (likely "Brisbane"), making identical edits [14] [15] on the same articles and showing the same racist attitude toward Afghans and Indians.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Krzyhorse22: Do not make accusations against other users that they are socks. If you are so certain, then open an WP:SPI. You have been warned about this before.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bbb23, this report is obviously about Saladin1987 violating 3rr, vandalizing major articles [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] and pov pushing as you know him for. I see no logical reason for you concentrating on me instead of him. I'm making constructive edits only to improve articles and help build Wikipedia's reputation as a reliable source. Do you see anyone having any problems with my edits? Is there anyone reporting me for any bad behavior? I hate to say this but you seem to be under Saladin's influence or something because you're trying to act like his lawyer in trying to legitimize his actions now. Please stop this behavior and show respect to a fellow editor who is helping the project. Wikipedia is based in USA so the principle of Double jeopardy must be applied here, especially among Americans like you and me. That is the sock charge was dismissed (whatever the reason was) so it should not be brought again unless I violate the rule or something. Thank you for understanding.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 06:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have thrice asked User:Krzyhorse22 to reach a concensus before adding anything in the article. He has deliberately added content without having a discussion on talk page which i have started in the talk page. If i am wrong anybody can have a look at the talk page which clearly states that lets reach concensus before added disputed information. He has reported me but himself has broken 3 revert rule Saladin1987 17:51, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The links he has mentioned has no sense as Afghan in modern sense relates to Afghanistan and not to Pashtuns anymore. He seems to live in 16th century who wants the articles according to 16th century identities. if the poet is born on Pakistani side , pakistan is going to be added. Similarly there was no Afghanistan before 1800s but there are articles which User:Krzyhorse22 has added Afghanistan to although the articles belong to people born far before than that. But as he has reported me for the article Pashtun people, i should stay with this article. I have many times left comments on talk page and edit page that we should have a concensus before proceeding but he seems to push his own opinions neglecting the opinions of millions of pashtuns of Pakistan. If i am found guilty and wrong, i surely should be blocked but i would appreciate the admins to have a look at the edit history and talk page before making any decision. thankyouSaladin1987 18:03, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

i even asked assistance here but you can see his reply on the talk page. he is making baseless accusations against me being anti indian. [[22]] Saladin1987 18:06, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I left several message in talk not to remove certain content but he did it anyway and laughed. [23] This guy doesn't care about Wikipedia rules or anything, he just wants to promote Punjabis/Pakistan and put down Pashtuns/Afghanistan, and he doesn't care about being blocked (indication he is a sock, notice the main account is not coming here to deny the sock charge). His lenghthy nonsense regarding Afghanistan and Pakistan, and his wild (unsourced) claims everywhere are very disruptive. Most of all, he is targetting a specific group and country (Afghan people / Afghanistan) and he isn't even shy to admit this. He defines an ethnic group by language and wants to force this view in Wikipedia on everyone.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have figured a little bit. Check Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 07:23, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am myself, i am not any other user as suggested by Krzyhorse22. I am in Pakistan not in Brisbane as suggested by the person who is tagging me with baseless accusations.

I provided information that shows you're likely editing from Australia, [24] where the other person claimed to be [25], this is supported by the fact that you call others "mate" [26] [27] [28] (which is commonly used in Australia and never in Pakistan). In Pakistan they use "yar" or "yaar". In addition, the things you write about Afghans/Pashtuns in talk pages is clearly showing to me that you're in Australia because in that country there are more ethnic Hazaras and Tajiks (Persians) than Pashtuns and this is reflected in your personal opinions. [29] Do you get what I'm saying? If you didn't actually live in Australia how would you known all of this? The last thing Pakistanis living in Pakistan would want to know about which Afghan ethnic group is higher in Western countries. Finally, I have caught that other guy who always thinks like you and appears where you appear [30] [31] for abusing multiple accounts in another site and he got blocked after a CU confirmed it. He was using this IP (from Brisbane [32]) and showing anti-Indian sentiment the same way you show it (e.g., removing images of Indian Pashtuns from major articles [33] and writing nonsense to justify this [34]). This edit by that same Brisbane IP made an edit right after his additional account User:Drspaz. That same Brisbane IP once wrote this message and just the other day you wrote this message. They both appear to be very much the same. You may try to act like Yosemite Sam all you want but the fact is you aren't in Pakistan, unless you can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Battin High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [35]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [36]
2. [37]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38]

Comments:

I have had an issue with this editor and edit warring in the past. Please see here.

I enjoy editing articles about New Jersey, and have created many new articles about the state. I have also added hundreds of photos to articles about the United States via my Commons account. Unfortunately, I have again and again been frustrated by this one editor. I feel my edits to Battin High School were positive ones, and I tried to discuss my concern about inaccuracies in the article on the talk page. I'm sorry to have to keep coming here, but I'm not sure what I could have done differently, and this editor simply will not stop.

As for "Wikistalking"; it would be difficult to edit any New Jersey article without bumping into Alansohn.

Thank you again for any help you may give. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:21, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Magnolia677 is up to his usual abuse of process. He doesn't edit school articles. He has never edited any of the four or five articles that link to Battin High School; The article had been created hours before and was not linked into the network of articles about the state, as he claims; He had to go out of his way to find it. As is his rather bad habit, he has persistently engaged in WP:WIKISTALKING, trying to manufacture conflicts so that he can run off to claim that I have done something terrible. Four previous failed trips to WP:ANI by Magnolia677 and one previous case (here, just a few weeks ago), and we're back again.

Magnolia677 fails to understand WP:BRD and insists that his version must stand over any other, subject to him deciding that another editor's edit meets his standards. I have pointed to a source that explicitly states that the school was constructed in the year stated, and cited that source both in the article and in the edit summary. If he can provide alternative sources, I look forward to changing and expanding the article, but the article is based on several sources that cite the 1913 date.

There is no legitimate issue here. This is sadly someone who just is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia and I don't know why anyone should have to put up with his bullshit. Can anyone tell Magnolia677 to get over his vendetta and move on? Even a block of a few days or weeks might help tone down the levels of crap here. Alansohn (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I wanted to try a less formal method to resolve this, but have not had luck with that either. Last January I tried "Third Opinion" with this edit. Despite the instructions at third opinion--in bold--that "no discussion of the issue should take place here", Alansohn "somehow" noticed I had left a message there, and added his own comment to mine 18 minutes later. Again, thank you for your assistance. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:12, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. This is the wrong forum for the allegations by the filer.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Jessica Barth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [39]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [40]
2. [41]
3. [42]
4. [43]
5. [44]
6. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

Comments:

2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 doesn't seem to understand, or simply won't abide by, WP:VERIFY, WP:USERGENERATED, WP:ONUS or WP:EDITWAR. 2001:7E8:C6BD:D901:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 persists on adding Vassar College to Jessica Barth's Education section of the article's Infobox, even though the only source provided (after repeated requests) is her own website. Contributor321 (talk) 17:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Obviously self-published sources are generally not the best because anyone can say anything about anything. We all get that. However, when the content in question is something like a non-contentious bit of information about a school someone went to, that doesn't mean we have to outright ban its inclusion because the source given is the subject's personal website. A personal website can still be used as a primary source of information. Obviously we prefer secondary sources, but that doesn't mean it's okay to edit war because someone's adding something backed by a primary source. As with everything, common sense applies, and it seems like you're Wikilawyering rather than contesting the content for a good reason. Please discuss the issue. Swarm... ^—X— 20:05, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: NewSpring Church (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Newspring1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

[48]

Previous version reverted to: [49]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [50]
2. [51]
3. [52]
4. [53]
5. [54]
6. [55]
7. [56]
8. [57]
9. [58]
10. [59]
11. [60]
12. [61]
13. [62]

Initial Warning: [63]
Page Blanked after warning by Newspring1: [64]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Cfd954 (talk) 19:51, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked indefinitely as being in violation of username policy. Swarm... ^—X— 21:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and please let us know if this editor returns with a different account and continues disrupting the page. Swarm... ^—X— 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Amritsar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MICHAEL JIMMY ATQ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:27, 20 March 2015‎
2. 19:24, 20 March 2015‎
3. 18:58, 20 March 2015
4. 18:47, 20 March 2015
5. 18:27, 20 March 2015
6. 17:27, 20 March 2015‎

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

1. 20:23, 20 March 2015

Comments:

User edit warring over advertising mention of a restaurant, sometimes adding linkspam to the restaurant Facebook page. The user's only posts to talk pages have been to say he knows much about what's notable and what tourists want to find in his city. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Longer than usual block due to the promotional nature of their edits. Not entirely convinced this user's an advertising-only account and is not acting in good faith, but they're certainly skirting close to that territory. Swarm... ^—X— 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomruen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [66]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]
7. [73]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:

Tomruen is trying to restore unsourced text and continues to edit war it in after multiple editors have reverted them. Now seven Six reverts with 24 hours is pretty blatant, and Tomruen appears intent to continue edit warring. Ad Orientem, the other primarily involved editor, technically crossed the 3RR line as well (might have just misunderstood their first edit counted as a revert), but made it clear they do not want to edit war any further [76]. An immediate block for Tomruen looks pretty warranted here, and maybe for a longer period than 24 hours given how far past the 3RR line Tomruen has gone. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article deserves attention. It is rude to me to delete material under discussion. If the article is notable, it deserves a summary, which someone has provided, good or not. If its not notable, then perhaps a subset can be moved to the author's bio page? Whatever is done, hiding content is unhelpful. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we need three reports (!) but this editor needs to be blocked. He didn'tt heed warnings from several editors, and he is willfully ignoring the verifiability policy.- MrX 21:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I guess we were all thinking the same thing. Strange behavior for someone who apparently has a fair number of edits under their belt. I could have sworn this would be a completely new editor or something. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:34, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And if notability of the article cannot be established, and I think that is fairly obviously the case, it might make sense for the page to be both deleted and locked to prevent recreation. John Carter (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree. I think this might be the most consensus I've seen on wiki in a LONG time! --Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I reluctantly concur. The user seems completely impervious to reason. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. While a block may be warranted for each user involved in this dispute, I think this can just as easily be resolved by protecting the page in order to allow dispute resolution to progress in some form. The page has sat there in this state for years. It has been accepted by at least a silent consensus for quite some time. There's no sudden hurry to unilaterally wipe the article without discussion just because it's unsourced. You should all know about WP:BRD by now. The original change was disputed, thus it should've proceeded to dispute resolution, rather than this ridiculous edit war. Not saying Tom was in the right himself, but the multiple editors on the other side were certainly not in the right in their actions either. Now, I don't particularly see this as a promotion piece, but the argument for deletion or redirection based on WP:NOTE may have substance. However the correct thing to do when this is under dispute is to proceed to the proper venue—WP:AFD—and start a discussion there, where you'll be able to get additional input from the community and a definitive evaluation of community consensus by an uninvolved administrator. Please work together and edit responsibly. Regards, Swarm... ^—X— 22:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. Unsourced material can be deleted by any editor and WP:BRD is an essay. Obviously there was overwhelming consensus to delete the original research. Page protection is appropriate when there are multiple parties reverting and multiple parties restoring. There was one disruptive editor who should have been blocked. I do agree that the article should not simply be deleted though. The subject is likely notable. - MrX 22:19, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I must add my own respectful but strenuous disagreement with the above summary by Swarm. It completely ignores 3RR V CITE and CONSENSUS. Frankly I find it shocking. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, BRD is a widely accepted means of dispute resolution. A few editors agreeing does not mean there's an overwhelming consensus. And it also does not excuse anyone from edit warring. I'm glad to see there's discussion going on now, but it's unlikely that constructive discussion would be ongoing if both sides of the edit war had been blocked. It takes two sides to edit war, and had I blocked Tom, I would be obligated to block the users on the opposite side of the edit war as well. Blocking is not a punishment, it's a tool to halt disruption. Page protection is an acceptable alternative to blocking. And in this case, it was clearly the superior choice as it allowed for all involved to immediately continue discussing the issue. We could've avoided a lot of unnecessary drama had everyone simply allowed some time for discussion rather than declaring "CONSENSUS" and edit warring. So, while I'm sorry I didn't block your edit warring opponent, I'm fairly confident I'm doing you all and the project more of a favor than some other administrators who see an edit war and automatically start dishing out blocks. Swarm... ^—X— 23:18, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Reply on talk. Do not delete without discussion. Undid revision 652774442 by Ad Orientem (talk)"
2. 20:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "You're going to have to explain better. Undid revision 652776412 by Ad Orientem (talk)"
3. 20:31, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Hiding material you don't like won't help anything except your ego. Undid revision 652782215 by MrX (talk)"
4. 20:48, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "deleting content while discussing is rude Undid revision 652783903 by John Carter (talk)"
5. 21:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "How is deleting content helping discussion?! Undid revision 652786416 by John Carter (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:44, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "re"
2. 20:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am'. (TW)"
3. 20:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "/* March 2015 */ Please revert your addition of unsourced material. If you refuse I may have to request intervention from an Admin. Thank you."
4. 20:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "/* March 2015 */ re"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:30, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Redirecting */ WP:V requires reliable sources for all material in articles."
2. 19:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Redirecting */ Please do not continue to add unsourced material."

Comments:

Edit warring and persistent re-addition of unsourced material depsite repeated efforts to discuss and reason both on the user's talk page and the article talk page. Numerous warnings also issued. Ad Orientem (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I note that report was just filed above (edit conflict). Feel free to merge or delete this as appropriate. -Ad Orientem (talk) 21:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected (see above) Swarm... ^—X— 22:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Life Is Real Only Then, When 'I Am' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomruen (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. [77]
2. [78]
3. [79]
4. [80]
5. [81]
6. [82]
7. [83]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [84]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: full discussion here

Comments:
It is worth noting that the article is currently facing the prospect of speedy deletion based on lack of any notability established in its years of existence. John Carter (talk) 21:13, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also note the apparent redundancy of this report, and feel free to merge or ignore. Sorry about that. John Carter (talk) 21:16, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I have 3 reports here? Why the need for a "speedy delete"? Someone is in a hurry and it is not me. Tom Ruen (talk) 21:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tom, it should be obvious why you have 3 reports here... it's because you have been engaged in edit warring. Blueboar (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected (see above) Swarm... ^—X— 22:12, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Walter O'Brien (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:24, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "O'Brien's claim that he "defined the frame problem" is verifiably false. This is not controversial. Do not revert!"
2. Consecutive edits made from 23:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC) to 23:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 23:06, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "add non-controversial example of false claim made by O'brien"
   2. 23:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "fix url"
   3. 23:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "revert reversion by Winklevi. Original edit was non-controversial removal of useless sources that don't establish notability"
3. 23:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "remove two citations that do nothing to establish notability of Langton & Carmichael or O'Brien's connection to it"
4. Consecutive edits made from 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC) to 22:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "revert vandalism on my contributions to the controversy section"
   2. 22:45, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "make less inflamatory"
   3. 22:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "tone-down unencyclopedic descriptions"
5. 22:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Controversy */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:01, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "re Walter obrien"
2. 23:17, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Walter O'Brien. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User has stated on my talk page that he will continue reverting no matter what. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:28, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will stop reverting for a short time while we discuss this. I will admit that the first contribution contained a sentence which was too strongly-worded. All subsequent modifications I made were reasonable. There is no way we can improve this page if this editor is going to revert anything that questions O'brien's claims - which are extremely suspect. O'brien claims to have "defined the frame problem in artificial intelligence," when in fact that problem was defined before he was born. I added a source showing his claim of this, and a link to the Wikipedia article showing the actual history of the frame problem. These edits are non-controversial. If we have to discuss everything on the talk page before doing even simple modifications, nothing will get done. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:33, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also I object to being referred to as "he". This is the kind of attitude that is holding wikipedia back.50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Simple modifications, such as fixing a typo or changing to better wording, are fine. However, edits like the edits you want to make must be discussed on the talk page first per WP:CONSENSUS. - Amaury (talk) 23:39, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that addition of (sourced!) content required discussion on the talk page. If someone can somehow prove that O'brien traveled back in time and defined the frame problem before he was born, I will admit I was wrong. But until then it seems extremely non-controversial to point out that his claims about this accomplishment are false. I provided a source to the place on his website where he makes the assertion, and a link to the Wikipedia article that shows it is incorrect. What is the problem here? Winkelvi is the one who is edit-warring by repeatedly hindering progress on this article.50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:52, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree with the filer on this, may I also point out they, have once again breached 3RR as though last week's block or an even more recent warning have had no impact on them. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 23:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Not blocked. I did impose a block on this user as I hadn't yet seen their comment here, but I just unblocked them under the condition that they remain true to their word and stop reverting in order to discuss the matter. The user is warned that the block will be reinstated if they continue to edit war. Swarm... ^—X— 23:46, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

EoRdE6, take note that this article is a BLP and the IP editor was continually inserting controversial and unreferenced content about a living, breathing person. BLPs are a very different animal. If you also note, I stopped reverting his possibly libelous content additions and allowed other watchers to take over. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 23:50, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the content I inserted was referenced. And again, are correct (or none at all) gender pronouns too much to ask for? 50.184.134.157 (talk) 23:55, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I fully agree with the BLP concerns, thus your reversions are exempt from 3RR. Regardless of the merits of the IP's argument, her wording was certainly too biased to be acceptable in a BLP. That being said, given your recent history, it's probably not a great idea to rely on 3RR exemptions too much. Swarm... ^—X— 23:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Especially when there are certain editors just chomping at the bit to see me blocked and will do whatever they can to make sure that happens. Yes, that happens in Wikipedia (sadly). Aside from that truth, I hear what you are saying, Swarm. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so how do we proceed? Winkelvi has given no indication of what was wrong with my contribution, which was sourced and was highly non-controversial. I guess I just don't get to make that contribution because Winkelvi has decided to revert it over and over and then accuse ME of edit warring? How is this an efficient way to run an encyclopedia? I haven't heard one bit of explanation for why it's conceivable that O'brien's claims of inventing the frame problem are true. Just because he's a "living, breathing person" means we can't provide evidence against his claims without going through some complicated consensus process? 50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing no explanation, and considering Winkelvi's history of edit warring, I'm going to proceed with improving the article. I'll be sure to avoid direct criticisms of the article's subject, but I will not leave unverifiable technobabble in this article. As it stands now, it is extremely misleading and reads almost like an advertisement for O'brien's business.50.184.134.157 (talk) 00:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on article changes and improvements are supposed to take place at the article talk page, not at the 3RR noticeboard, User:50.184.134.157, that's why you aren't getting answers here. Further, another editor's "history of edit warring" has nothing to do with your choice to edit war. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Update: I just left the following message on Swarm's talk page, but don't know if they will be back any time soon to see it: The IP User:50.184.134.157 you immediately unblocked and warned is back to inserting the same content at the Walter O'Brien article as before. He first announced it here: [85] and proceeded here: [86], [87]. He also now claims a reputable source isn't a reputable source and will likely remove the source. He is also planning on deleting quite a bit of sourced content [88]. Which is everything they promised to do before they were blocked, so... -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now he's saying this: [89], intending to utilize WP:IAR to justify adding WP:SYNTH. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And now saying he's just going to continue edit warring ([90]). But why shouldn't he? He was given the message that it's perfectly okay to do so because even if you get blocked, you'll just get unblocked in a few minutes. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I admit that the change I proposed in the talk page needs discussion. That's why I posted it there. I won't carry it out unless there is consensus. The changes I did carry out are non-controversial, and I repeatedly asked you for any conceivable reason why someone could object to them, and you couldn't give me any. There is no problem here. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support WV on this. The IP editor has reverted again, re-adding material they'd added before, despite saying they would not. A block is now in order. Skyerise (talk) 01:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I wouldn't re-add the material, I said I would pause to listen to WV's reasoning behind not making my properly-sourced, non-controversial changes. They haven't provided any explanation for their mysterious objections to the changes, so I see no reason to wait indefinitely. 50.184.134.157 (talk) 01:48, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The IP editor has now been blocked for a week by User:Ymblanter for BLP violations. EdJohnston (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Can an admin please look into the article of the List of tallest people? I tried to add the tallest mass murderers such as Osama bin Laden and two users continue to revert my edit and they call it ridiculous and vandalism. One on these two users also dared to call my constructive editing "Vandalism". Can you please handle it out? And please tell me if my edit to this article was right or not. Thanks! Samhan Dobo (talk) 00:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Wrong place for this really, you should post on Talk:List of tallest people EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me list all the things that are wrong with this:

(1). You created a category "Tallest mass murderers" with no-one else in it.

(2). The category you made was incorrectly formatted.

(3). You did not provide a source for his height.

(4). You listed him as being from Afghanistan, when his nationality on Osama Bin Laden is Saudi Arabian until 1994 and stateless afterwards.

(5). Listing his years of birth as 1957- implies he's still alive, which he isn't.

And now on here, your mistakes are:

(1). This isn't a well formed request, since you haven't provided version differences showing edit warring.

(2). You have failed to inform the user(s) that you reported, which you are obliged to do so. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:24, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I think this issue should be discussed here, because reporting a user to the edit warring board with no serious evidence, when they've been adding incorrect, unreferenced information to an article is grossly insulting to myself and @Loriendrew: (who still hasn't been informed about this ridiculous accusation), who are being accused of edit warring unjustifiably. This user should be banned for improper conduct, and unexplained harassment of other users, by trying to get them blocked for removing the unsourced rubbish they added to an article. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:43, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Calm down a tad. First we don't BAN for a bad report to 3RR, heck I doubt it deserves a BLOCK. These aren't for punishment remember, they are to prevent damage. The user appears to have done this in good faith and you should try assuming that sometimes instead of shouting "VANDAL, ban (??) it!" at confused users. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to add Bin Laden to the list, and they're accusing me of gross misconduct (edit warring is gross misconduct on Wikipedia). Also, I meant ban not block. I'm trying to assume good faith, the first few edits were rolled back with a clear edit summary, saying that this was POV and unsourced. The responding edit summaries were "There is no source needed" and "That's your opinion and I don't care", followed by a report on here. I've tried to assume good faith, they have not. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302: Whether you wish to assume good faith or not in your head is up to you, but labeling the edits by a new account as vandalism is not constructive unless it's garden variety vandalism. So, don't. Asking that a user be banned at this board makes no sense.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. @Samhan Dobo: You are warned that if you revert again at the article, you risk being blocked without any further notice. You just created your account. Slow down. If you want to discuss the material you want to add to the article, do so civilly at the article's Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, understood. But it is really a mess from Joseph that he calls me a vandal and that he wants you to ban me from editing the Wikipedia! That'S really rude and stupid from him! I'm new here and all I want to give the Wikipedia are constructive contributions. And ok, I will add my request to the talk page of it's article. Thanks that you didn't block me. And how about a Welcome thread instead of adding stupid warnings to my talk page?! Samhan Dobo (talk) 11:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I overreacted, and I'm sorry. For 99% of new posters who post things I consider unhelpful, I send a welcome message, but I got was wrong here and assumed that you were trying to vandalise, because most people who add Bin Laden (or other terrorists) to articles are trying to vandalise Wikipedia. About the content, I'm going to write on the talkpage, and I also sent you a welcome message on your page. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. You don't have to feel sorry. I'm sorry for editwarring. And thanks for your welcome message. Samhan Dobo (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Sexism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John Davis, BA, JD, LLM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [91]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [92]
2. [93]
3. [94]
4. [95]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]

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

Comments:

New user very determined to add some POV content to Sexism that there's a strong consensus against adding - not sure if I should have reported this here, let me know if this was the wrong approach. Fyddlestix (talk) 02:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"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."John Davis, BA, JD, LLM (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobody said you were doing vandalism. But you *are* edit warring, and going against the consensus of numerous other users on the Sexism talk page. 24 hour 3RR block imposed. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

(are we allowed to report more than one in a single report?)

Hgilbert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Thebee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version before numerous reverts

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff1
2. diff2
3. diff3 (EPadmirateur and Thebee are, in my opinion, meat puppets of Hgilbert)
4. diff 4 ((EPadmirateur and Thebee are, in my opinion, meat puppets of Hgilbert--Here they removed all the problems templates, etc, and more well-sourced material)
5. see above
6. this has spread to several other articles in the sphere of Anthroposophy

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: EPadmirateurHgilbertTheBee

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff1diff2

Comments:

So I recently added Waldorf education, Camphill movement, Anthroposophy, and Anthroposophical medicine to Wikipedia:WikiProject Skepticism, and have met with some pretty severe pushback from some editors with marked WP:COI. Hgilbert initially began reverting all of my good faith edits and removing the criticisms I added which come from a number of WP:RS, including The BBC, the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Guardian, and the Atlantic. He even remarked on several occasions that newspapers should not be treated as WP:RS in the same way that his Anthroposophist Academic papers should be. (see talk page)

Subsequently, Hgilbert, and two other users (who I believe to be meat puppets) began reverting every revision, and neutering all of the NPOV that I added. These users all have a long history in this articles, including several ArbComs. Several passing users, Jeraphine Gryphon, Whitehat2009, and Dkriegls all attempted to help, but were also reverted or ignored. I posted numerous times on the talk page, and consensus was never reached in favor of removing the well-sourced claims I placed in the article. Hgilbert even accused me of being a sockpuppet of a previously banned activist editor instead of answering the arguments and working towards consensus. I try to AGF here, but all I see are reverts and rephrasings back to what these editors believe is the best this article can be. I don't think Hgilbert is here to create a wiki, I think he's here to neuter all criticism in this realm of articles, since he has a very blatant COI, and edits towards that COI's POV endlessly.

Could you temporarily protect it while I escalate to Dispute Resolution? Thanks--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 04:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected. Well, Shibbolethink, you got your wish, although you're just as guilty as the other editors. I've locked the article for a week. I have no comments on the accusations of meat puppetry. Yes, you can report several users in one report, but you are required to notify them of this report, which I don't believe you did.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged all three on their user:talk pages? Is there something else?--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OHHH, the NOTICE template. I honestly, 100%, missed this. I'm doing it now. I had no intention of deceit, and wish I had caught this before.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 05:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is covered by the Waldorf education Arbcom case. Due to a 2013 motion, discretionary sanctions are authorized. I'm leaving alerts for Shibbolethink, Thebee, EPadmirateur and Hgilbert per the terms of WP:AC/DS. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

The Miracle (Of Joey Ramone) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Correctingsection0062 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:08, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651933021 by Walter Görlitz (talk) Leave it how it was and if you wanna alter something so significant, please visit the discussion page."
2. 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652779760 by Weegeerunner (talk) Reviewers are not the "valid" source you claimed them to be. Check out, WP:Biased."
3. 20:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652785477 by Aria1561 (talk) Why are you not following the guidelines? Check WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSOPINION. Seriously, that's an author's opinion, not a fact."
4. 21:07, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652786326 by Aria1561 (talk) Again, leave it how it was and I was the first one that told you to go to the talk page. Seriously, why are you standing by over an author's opinion?"
5. 21:15, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652787915 by Weegeerunner (talk) Deeply sorry for reverting it back, but prior to discussing in the talk page. The article should be kept in its original state."
6. Consecutive edits made from 03:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC) to 03:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 03:22, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Unreliable source which I stated already. Also, see WP:BIASED, WP:QUESTIONABLE, WP:RSOPINION"
   2. 03:23, 21 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:16, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on The Miracle (Of Joey Ramone). (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Discussion started at Talk:The Miracle (Of Joey Ramone) Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:31, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bicycle_lock&oldid=635689835

Comments:

Last phrase of second paragraph in U-locks and D-locks:
However, locks with the cylindrical key are no longer offered by most manufacturers (with some cheap Chinese exceptions), and they should be avoided.
Deleted it due to racism

• Declined. Reported editor hasn't edited since December 2014. The filer is brand new.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: New York Red Bulls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wackosaurus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [98]
2. [99]
3. [100]
4. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Wackosaurus (talk page creation)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:New York Red Bulls#Nicknames

Comments:

There was, pursuant to a recent discussion, a consensus to remove the "metros" nickname from the infobox for this MLS team, based on the lack of any sourcing showing that it is actually a current nickname. This new user has reverted every removal, and refused to discuss in any fashion. They apparently signed up for a different account and forgot the password (it's a slightly misspelled name the first time). But the diff here is substantially the same and also a new user making their first edit. Clearly the same user. Good faith tells me that they just forgot their new log in (it happens) but that means the user, presuming it is the same person, is actually at 5 reverts. oknazevad (talk) 15:06, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ymblanter (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

History of WWE (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rebelrick123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:34, 19 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652048283 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk)"
2. 18:20, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652390850 by Creativity-II (talk)"
3. 00:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652775271 by RealDealBillMcNeal (talk), What exactly is The Authority Era? Go ahead and report, I'll keep fixing it."
4. 18:00, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652817305 by Creativity-II (talk) There's no Reality Era but Authority Era? Lol keep acting like you run this page, man."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:00, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of WWE. (TW)"
2. 01:35, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on History of WWE. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Has repeatedly and insistently reverted edits to the article to his own version, which contains unsourced additions to it. Has shown no intention of abiding by the removal of his unsourced edits per his comments and incivility toward editors removing his changes. Creativity-II (talk) 18:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I warned him not to revert the edit and repeatedly told him his edits were unsourced, but he has persisted to vandalise the page. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm blocking RealDealBillMcNeal for the same period for persistent edit warring, ownership and uncollaborative and combative behavior. Swarm... ^—X— 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:35, 20 March 2015 (UTC) "Starting with patent troll is fair because it's an accurate description of the company's line of business. "the number of lawsuits made some commentators call it a patent troll" is nonsense. "now appealing to US Supreme Court" is incorrect."
2. 04:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652829990 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 13:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) to 13:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:13, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652843157 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
   2. 13:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 22:53, 21 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See other warnings given on user's talk page. Also pinging NorthBySouthBaranof. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question appears to have something of a vendetta against Viringo. The company's activities are controversial, but we do not factually describe companies as "patent trolls" based on the word of a single commentator; it is no doubt notable enough to mention in the lede of the article that commentators have depicted it as such, but to state as a fact violates WP:NPOV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:28, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Result: Semiprotected. At least two different IPs from Bucharest have been warring to insert the 'patent troll' language in Wikipedia's voice since mid February. These IPs are presumably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, do I have so anything to say here? 5.12.179.96 (talk) 07:46, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

LE: Added explanations on EdJohnston's talk page, coz it seems I have to request unprotection from him. 5.12.179.96 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Hinduism */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 04:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC) to 04:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 04:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652966574 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) personal attack"
   2. 04:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Islam */ original content by authors cited"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was blocked for edit warring over a variety of articles, and talk page access was revoked. Coming off his block yesterday, his only contributions have been to pick up the wars again and return to reverting changes without discussion.

See edits to Creationism, Maitreya, Bochasanwasi Shri Akshar Purushottam Swaminarayan Sanstha, etc, which are all continuations of his prior edit war.

Edits are to a variety of pages, so semi-protection isn't feasible. Another block for a few days might encourage him to move on.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of one week by Nakon.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Rodina (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [102]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [103]
2. [104]
3. [105]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments: Today I fixed a problematic classification in the lead section of this article (the consensus among sources seems to be that it is a nationalist party with leftist economic platform. Therefore, just "far-right" in the lead makes no sense, even if there may be a handful of sources that have this label). A user with whom I had a dispute on another talk page, started this "revenge" edit war. I know, that he didn't violate 3 reverts rule directly, but this kind of behaviour: follwoing a perceived enemy and reverting his constructive changes is unacceptable.Phil070707 (talk) 18:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: I would not be opposed to leaving the classification "left-wing" out of the lead, if this is an issue for someone (leaving just "nationalist", which is indisputable). However, the current version Marek kept reverting to is totally unacceptable for 2 reasons: - 1. a party cannot be "far-right" and "left-wing" at the same time 2. the so-called source Marek is using for his odd classification is a newspaper article [107] where the Rodina is mentioned just once passing by with no additional information while the 2 sources I refer to are scholarly sources which clearly take precedence over less reliable sources. Phil070707 (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Update: here we go again: Volunteer Marek has now basically decided to revert ANY edit I've made with the wrong allegation - personal assault - that I'm a sock puppet. How long can he go on like that? Phil070707 (talk) 19:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by other editors:

This is not a 3RR violation and the above account is a screamin', yellin', quackin' DUCK WITH MEGAPHONE of Indef banned user Lokalkosmopolit. I'm assembling the diffs and the info for the SPI as we speak but those always take (i.e. waste) a lot of time.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Suspecting that someone may be a multiple account of someone does not give you the right to start idiotic edit wars. Discuss the issue on appropriate venues! And as for 3 RR, UI never claimed you performed more than 3 reverts, and this is not a single case on your part but part of your wider editing pattern: provoking edit wars on the Eastern European topics. Just a quick look at your contributions list demonstrates it: (some examples: [108], [109]. Phil070707 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

your wider editing pattern: provoking edit wars on the Eastern European topics - this is nonsense, except for the fact that it further demonstrates that you are indeed the sockpuppet of the user I mention above, since they tried to falsely accuse me of exactly the same thing.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Marek has made exactly the same number of reverts on this page as the complainant. Neither of them have broken the three-revert rule.

Previous version reverted to by Phil070707: 02:09, 9 February 2015 Note the lack of "far-right" in the infobox.

Diffs of the Phil070707's reverts:

1. 15:30, 22 March 2015 removed far-right from infobox.
2. 18:08, 22 March 2015 removed far-right from infobox.
3. 18:11, 22 March 2015 removed far-right from infobox.

Recommend 24 hour block for Phil070707 for trying to game the system.-- Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My edits were well explained. I'm not gaming the system but improving the quality of articles. The version before my edits was deficient as I explained at the respective talk page. None of you two managed to present any decent counterarguments to my view. Phil070707 (talk) 18:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have. A simple counter argument - the info you're trying to remove is reliably sourced (just like the info you tried to remove in your previous incarnations was sourced). You just don't agree with the source. That's your problem, not Wikipedia's.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the absurd lead like ″Rodina or Motherland-National Patriotic Union (Rodina - Narodno-Patrioticheskiy Soyuz, Партия "РОДИНА") is a far-right political party in Russia. It was a coalition of 30 nationalist and left-wing groups″ is preferrable to the reasonable one I wrote then I doubt whether you actually are fit to edit constructively. Phil070707 (talk) 18:57, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As far as Toddy1 is concerned, I'd add that this is yet another problematic editor from the Ukraine-Russia topics. He is no neutral 3. party! Like VM he is prone to concocting ideological nonsense like ″neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist writer Alexander Prokhanov″ [110] which the neutral editors then have to fix [111]. Phil070707 (talk) 19:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Making personal attacks at an admin noticeboard is ulikely to help your case. it might to wise to strike those quickly. Also you failed to follow Bold-revert-discuss when you were reverted it should have gone to the talk page to discuss. Amortias (T)(C) 19:16, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to change my comment. We need to remain rational and calm. As for the cycle you refer to, I started a thread at the respective talk page and made constructive proposals - to no avail. VM is not interested in improving the article. Phil070707 (talk) 19:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That personal attack above against Toddy, the fact that Phil070707 is apparently familiar with them (despite having supposedly NEVER interacted with them), the calling of people "idiots" is just more proof that this is a sockpuppet of User:Lokalkosmopolit. Compare: [112]. As is his arguing over the politics of Alexander Prokhanov, which is also what Lokalkosmopolit (more precisely one of their sock puppets, User:Patriot Donbassa) did: [113] . It's him. Indef banned user socking and provoking edit wars. Just block and tag, save regular editors some time rather than forcing them to deal with nonsense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:51, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am NOT a sock puppet of the said user. You know very well that sock puppet investigations should be pursued at the respective page. Your allegations constitute a personal assault and you use these as a red herring to justify your revert warring spree. Phil070707 (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And as far as this Toddy1 ois concerned, unfortunately I indeed am familiar with that account after his edits like this. Very suspicious indeed! Phil070707 (talk) 19:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And they will be. But you're quacking so loudly that it's pretty much a (time wasting) formality.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Declined. No 3RR violation. Volunteer Marek may pursue his allegations at the SPI.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Burzynski Clinic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653041312 by Jytdog (talk) I confused the Blaskeiwicz ref w/ Gorski ref; but, this text doesn't contribute to its article sec, and contains unsubstantiated claims of wrong of wrong-doing"
2. 17:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653040160 by Rhode Island Red (talk) extremist newsletter (e.g his letter also attacks global warming) - no ed. review/control, not an WP:RS, it simply fits your bias"
3. 10:56, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652981011 by BullRangifer (talk) your name-calling revert of all my carefully made changes is insulting and unjjustified, Bullrangifer"
4. 04:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652968038 by Rhode Island Red (talk) a WP:RS?? (how can you possibly say that?? it is UNSOURCED [primary-sourced via extremist newsletter])"
5. Consecutive edits made from 02:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC) to 02:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
   1. 02:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652959506 by Jytdog (talk) my summary was fine (there was no ambiguity, summarizing is not adding non-neutrality, summarizing src material is what we're supposed to do in cases like this"
   2. 02:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 652959425 by Jytdog (talk) inclusion isn't "fine" just because you say it is Jytdog; this is *unsourced* (primary source) non-notable extremist newsletter"

Note that there are other reverts in the history, these were just the ones where the "Undid" terms were used in the edit summary.

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Editor warned here and here earlier this month, and was warned again today.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Continued to edit war despite 3RR warning here. Yobol (talk) 19:20, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah we should have come here sooner. thanks for filing this Yobol and for protecting the page, Bbb23. Jytdog (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Page protected for one week. IHardlythinkso is reverting more than other editors, but there are too many warriors involved.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bbb23, thx for recognizing what I've been up against (at least four editors taking turns reverting my edits). The last revert by me was made on the basis of WP:BLP (as said at WP:RPP and article Talk). I actually would prefer that you locked down the article for two weeks instead of one; however, your lockdown came after user Bullrangifer (in cooperation w/ editors Rhode Island Red and Jytdog) restored the offending material. (Additionally, his editsum contained not rationale just re-assertion: "restore perfectly good opinion of subject expert". In response to my editsum!?: "this text doesn't contribute to its article sec, and contains unsubstantiated claims of wrong of wrong-doing".) Thanks for your consider. IHTS (talk) 20:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Implicit in your remarks is you want me to back out the last change to the article because of WP:BLP concerns. It's my view that the BLP problem is debatable. Thus, I think that should be one of the issues that you and the others work out on the article Talk page, or any other appropriate forum like WP:BLPN. And I sincerely hope you can work it out. Otherwise, there may be blocks if editors start restoring their own version after the protection expires.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Allameh Tabatabai Management School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Shj369 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 20:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Do not delete a history of a famous business school in Middle East, this is an explicit vandalism. RESPECT..."
2. 20:21, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "This article is about the business school, respect other countries and cultures. PLEASE DON'T DELETE AN ARTICLE DUE TO YOUR INTERESTS"
3. 20:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 19:59, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653054905 by RoySmith (talk) Please, do not delete the school page"
5. 19:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 651508147 by RoySmith (talk) This article is about the first modern business school in Iran"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user is consistently pushing to include his article on some management school, which did not turn out notable per this deletion discussion. It was suggested in that discussion to redirect the article to this one, and that is how it turned out. I have reminded the user about our policies, but he continues to edit war in an attempt to include his article. I ran out of reverts, due to the three revert rule, which I also reminded the user of. It turns out that I am needing assistance in dealing with this user. McDonald of Kindness ^{(talk • contributions)} 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm providing a brief explanation on the talk page of the article (talk • contributions) 21:09, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the redirect page for a week. Hopefully, that will solve the problem without need for any more drastic action. My suggestion is let it go at that, and if this continues to be a problem after the protection expires, we can consider something stronger. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Gravitational constant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 37.208.33.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [114] Should be obvious from version history.

Diffs of the user's reverts: Literally all of the user contributions (link see above)

• 10:53, March 22, 2015 [115]
• 11:32, March 22, 2015 [116]
• 12:15, March 22, 2015 [117]
• 12:47, March 22, 2015 [118]
• 13:54, March 22, 2015 [119]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [120]%3AGravitational_constant&diff=653053868&oldid=586447885Previous 3RR case

Comments:
Clear 3RR violation. --mfb (talk) 21:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The only activity of this account is to WP:PUSH this unsourced material

Page

Rape in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:42, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653076060 by Vtk1987 (talk) revert Sock Puppet"
2. 22:38, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 653075692 by Vtk1987 (talk) See talk page."

User is also certainly IP: 72.196.235.154, who made reverts here before creating their account:

1. [121]
2. [122]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:40, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Rape in India. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Unproven/non-notable allegations */"
2. 22:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC) "/* Unproven/non-notable allegations */"

Comments:

Article history reveals a history of edit warring with multiple editors. ― Padenton |☎  22:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Padenton for some reason also left out the other users are brand new and obvious sock puppets. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know whether Vtk1987 is a sock puppet or not. However, I was actually referring to OccultZone ― Padenton |☎  22:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then why is none of the edits you linked to above about OccultZone? The edits above are due to Vtk1987 and Human3015, sock puppet accounts. TCKTKtool (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Partly because this is the 3RR noticeboard and these are the only ones in the last 24 hours. Partly because you responded before I had a chance to add more. However, here: [123] [124] [125] [126] ― Padenton |☎  23:13, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which have nothing to do with your original notice. What are you trying to do and why the with hunt when you are shown the be wrong? You should have kept this at the Rape in India talk page instead of trying to get someone blocked so you can revert. TCKTKtool (talk) 23:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]