Page: Tim Kaine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JasmineO0o (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: User_talk:JasmineO0o#Tim_Kaine_page

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Tim_Kaine#Youngest_son

Comments:
User has repeatedly reverted an article currently under a 1RR rule, accused users of being bias due to political beliefs and apparently lodged a complaint against me for reverting their changes as per the talk page consensus. Bakilas (talk) 08:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it up to someone else here to determine the block, I'll topic ban her. Doug Weller talk 15:15, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drmies beat me to it, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oppulence76.

Page: Xizhimen Station (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.154.166.56 (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. [5]
2. [6]
3. [7]
4. [8]
5. [9]
6. [10]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [11]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Xizhimen Station#Absurd reverting

Comments:
The user was edit-warring against multiple users, claiming material is not encyclopedic. After I warned them, they indeed opened a talk page discussion, which was not constructive. They were asking for the definition of "encyclopedic" and rejected all other arguments. After a while, they returned to reverting. Probably need a block.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:04, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe Ymblanter is editing in good faith. The material was absurd and self-evidently not appropriate for inclusion. Who seriously thinks it's worthwhile to say that a metro transfer "involves climbing stairs"? Whatever edits I made, they reverted, and they have refused to provide a justification when asked on talk. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 12:16, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a little ironic that Ymblanter links to the attempt to resolve the dispute that I started and that they refused to engage sensibly with. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 12:18, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I asked some simple questions four days ago: "So what if it involves climbing stairs? So what if it involves taking an escalator? So what if it involves going the relief area? What, in any case, is a "relief area"? So what if the distance is 400m?" Ymblanter refused to answer, and four days was plenty of time for them to do so, so today I edited the article again. Notice on the talk page the utter lack of justification for including this nonsensical text from Ymblanter. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 12:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Seems to be similar behaviour kicking off at Bare-metal server. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• [12]
• [13]
• [14]

Andy Dingley (talk) 13:43, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...yes, it seems there are two articles where people have disruptively undone my clearly necessary and clearly beneficial edits without explaining why. If an article says "at one time", and I tag it with {{when}}, what am I to make of someone who removes that tag with no explanation? 124.154.166.56 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You may note Andy Dingley's edit summaries for his wholesale reverts of my work: "restore quotes - clearer before" when removing tags, formatting things in violation of the MOS, and starting three consecutive paragraphs with the same phrase, while restoring one quote which had no attribution and which clearly violated the quotation guidelines; "ce", when doing exactly the same thing a second time. That was clearly dishonest and I do not think the actions were in good faith. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that I have explained my edits and I have at no time broken the 3RR. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note also that I have no interest in disputes and have never before encountered such inexplicable resistance to straightforward changes. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 14:46, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User to Admin Suggestion: I checked over the edit history, and there is considerable reversions by the reported, who is most definitely being disruptive with their edits and lacking any calm, civil manner to enter a discussion and resolve a serious dispute they have caused. Their disruptions occurred today, and four days ago (at time of this being added in), so I would suggest a Page Protection to the article in this report, and swift action against the IP User. They may not have broken 3RR, but they clearly have been disruptive. GUtt01 (talk) 15:17, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think that making articles better is a good thing to do. I think that undoing clearly beneficial edits with little or no explanation is disruptive. I do the former. 124.154.166.56 (talk) 15:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@124.154.166.56: Possibly, but you were still being disruptive. Neither you, nor the reportee showed good behaviour in the talk page. If you're going to make beneficial edits, they got to be done in a civilised, calm manner, and if someone reverts, you don't suddenly start making reversions yourself. You discuss the matter on the article's talk page, and come to a consensus. Honestly... I think the disruptions being caused here are quite bad.

User to Admin Suggestion: Adding an additional suggestion - check the information that is in dispute between the reported, and the two Wikipedians they are in dispute with. GUtt01 (talk) 16:41, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – 48 hours. They made seven similar reverts during the month of August and seemingly have not much interest in compromise. (The IP editor says above: "..people have disruptively undone my clearly necessary and clearly beneficial edits..") In any case a talk page consensus is needed. In the current discussion nobody appears to support the IP's removal of this text, though revising it is being considered to be an option. EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: AmazingAnime4 (talk · contribs · logs · edit filter log · block log)

Comments: I believe that User AmazingAnime4 is conducting an Edit War against me by unnecessarily editing and changing certain contributions I have submitted. I have tried to reason with this User on his Talk page, but he has repeatedly and deliberately blanked that page without any comment or attempt to contact me.TonyPS214 14:11, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. only (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Samurai Jack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danut1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 14:45, August 17, 2017
2. 09:00, August 17, 2017
3. 19:24, August 2, 2017
4. 09:56, July 18, 2017

Notification of edit warring: User talk:Danut1999

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Samurai Jack

Comments:
User appears to be a genre warrior who makes unsourced changes to infobox genre lists. Usernamejello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is very possibly a sock of User:Danut1999 as they made the exact same unsourced infobox genre modifications. Bright☀ 15:42, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – 24 hours. The user continued to make an unsourced change to a film genre at 18:52 on 18 August after being notified of the report here, so it appears that a block is needed to get their attention. EdJohnston (talk) 18:17, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Elisa Jordana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LeafK1 (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Jordana&oldid=796300292
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Jordana&diff=cur&oldid=796298478
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Jordana&diff=cur&oldid=796158699
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisa_Jordana&diff=cur&oldid=796152183

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

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

Comments:

User to Admin Suggestion: A check of the article in this report, shows the pair are in dispute over certain pieces of information. The fact that neither user has attempted to conduct a civilised discussion over this matter, suggest that both are being clearly disruptive on this article. I would recommend that the page be protected and both users advised to conduct a discussion on the article's talk page over this matter; an examination of the information being constantly changed should also be done to determine if there is any issues in regards to WP:BLP. GUtt01 (talk) 22:48, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page protected – Two weeks. Please use the talk page to discuss the matters in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 01:51, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Dismissal of James Comey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oneshotofwhiskey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

IP-hopping to:

• 71.218.101.102 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 63.227.77.251 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [15]
2. [16]
3. [17]

In addition to the fact that Oneshot is already indeffed, the article is under 1RR, and IP-hopping should not be a way to game the system.

For evidence that Oneshot is the sockmaster, note that these latest Colorado–based IPs followed SPECIFICO to this article from her talk page, which block-evading Oneshot IPs have been frequenting for months ([18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23]), mostly to berate me. (In fact, IP 71.218.101.102 previously followed SPECIFICO to Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, appearing there only a few hours after SPECIFICO.) Compare this earlier message by another Oneshot IP in the 71.218 range to this by IP 63.227.77.251:

• "Sorry you are getting harassed by TTAAC. You are a good editor who is clearly trying to be fair and do what is right by Wikipedia. Everyone has their biases and no one is perfect, especially us. haha. But I don't see any reason for this constant berating you receive by trolls like TTAAC."—Oneshot as IP 71.218.141.67 to SPECIFICO, December 25, 2016;

• "Tagging because of personal attack by TTAAC.Don't do it again. Try leaving feedback sans childish, crybaby language."—Oneshot as IP 63.227.77.251 to SPECIFICO, August 18, 2017.

Also note the parallel between IP 63.227.77.251's concern that Dismissal of James Comey "reads like PR spin " and Oneshot's earlier description of Dinesh D'Souza as "a PR spin page." Finally, Oneshot's continued obsession with me, whom he calls an "edit warrior," and his immediate resort to personal attacks on supposedly "alt right" fellow editors, are hallmarks of his style.

Pinging DoRD, who is familiar with Oneshot's antics, on the off chance that there is any plausible range block for the 71.218 IPs.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

User to Admin Suggestion: If there is indeed IP hopping going on here, it would be best that an admin puts the article into temporary semi-protection immediately, and to investigate the reported for possible block evasion of their Indef Block. This is certainly not acceptable behaviour... GUtt01 (talk) 22:53, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Upon closer inspection, it would appear that reporting user TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) is WP:GAMING this as part of very subtle, long term harassment campaign of user SPECIFICO talk. See this message [[24]] from Times, where he is trying to conspire with another user into weaponing this report against SPECIFICO. I'm choosing to remain anonymous so I won't be targeted by this cunning battleground editor.74.211.57.110 (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Semiprotected three months due to probable IP socking. For reference see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Oneshotofwhiskey. One of the commenting admins, User:DoRD, stated that 71.218.129.181 (a Centurylink IP from Colorado) was most likely Oneshotofwhiskey, and 71.218.141.67 also fits that pattern. The other IP named in this report, 63.227.77.251 (talk · contribs), has the same geolocation. I don't see any practical range blocks. EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [26]
2. [27]
3. [28]
4. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Hillbillyholiday#Your_mass_deletions

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Britney_Spears#Recent_deletions

Comments:

User has shown a repeated pattern of edit warring across multiple celebrity articles. I have listed Britney Spears, but here are others: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, Kanye West, Amanda Bynes. Bradley Cooper, etc. While some of his edits are good and appreciated, other users have had trouble getting him to discuss his edits with the community. See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_deletions_and_edit_warring_across_celebrity_articles_by_Hillbillyholiday. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 00:49, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I ask administrators to look at all the other reverts this editor has made in 24 hours. The Britney Spears article is just one example. Even going beyond 24 hours, slow-burn edit wars are also problematic because they solve nothing and keep going, and going, and going, like a certain famous pink bunny. Whether it's a block or a stern warning, Hillbillyholiday needs to stop edit warring when editors object to his or her mass deletions. Hillbillyholiday needs to stop the mass deletions without attempting discussion as well, unless removing BLP violations or other serious problems, but no administrator at WP:ANI has yet weighed in warning Hillbillyholiday to stop doing that and/or to stop edit warring. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:04, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This account of the saga is highly misleading. Most of these are important edits to BLPs and all the edits are justified, the reverters have rarely given a valid rationale in their edit summaries. They just don't seem to like seeing large cuts. And no-one is having trouble getting me to discuss my edits. I am currently in discussions at Kanye West, Britney Spears, and Megan Fox. I just asked at the WP:BLP/N for assistance with the Amanda Bynes article. Nowhere have I been given a valid reason for being reverted, nor has anyone made a good case for their additions. There are curently several editors tag-teaming to revert my edits, again, they are not giving reasons in their summaries, just blind reverts. Except Flyer, none are engaging on the talkpages.

Flyer's involvement is concerning to say the least. Take a look at talk:Kanye West. Having just blindly reverted my edit, Flyer then says "I'm not too opposed to the recent cuts." Cjhard respomds "Yeah, me neither. That's some nice trimming." Yet they felt the need to revert first! See also Flyer's thoughts on the sourcing for Kanye's mental health issues, or her ideas about sourcing Britney's legacy. Frankly the evidence would suggest they shouldn't be anywhere near these topics. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 01:21, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't revert anything. You have my support for your edits to Kanye West. Yes, your edits are good, but you've gotta understand that when you make massive changes to articles like that, you're going to get some resistance, so you're going to need to do some convincing on talk pages, rather than immediately reverting back when your changes are reverted. Being right is no excuse for edit warring, and insulting Flyer is not helping your case. Cjhard (talk) 01:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Cjhard.

Hillbillyholiday, not misleading in any way. You often either interpret WP:BLP wrongly or far too strictly. You mainly remove content because you do not like it, which is more than evident in the Jennifer Lawrence case. The vast majority of your removals in the case of these articles (the ones I noted at WP:ANI, and even the Bradley Cooper article mentioned above) are not WP:BLP violations. It's just content you do not like because you consider it trivial, garbage or whatever else. Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions states, "What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial." And "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." And yet you revert, revert and revert. And you are still edit warring. We get it: You think you are right. You have no doubts about what you are removing. But a number of experienced editors disagree with you. As for discussion, you are only willing to discuss when your version of the article is the current state of the article and/or when you intend to revert again anyway. You are not truly taking the time to listen. You are doing what you want to do and think that you won't get reprimanded for it, which is why you didn't bother to comment at WP:ANI. Now that you have been reported here and there's the sense that you will be reprimanded in this forum, you have decided to comment.

As for the Kanye West matter, I clearly stated, "two editors agreeing with your cuts doesn't mean that you should automatically revert again." And "I missed your earlier statement of 'You're 'not too opposed to the recent cuts' but you reverted anyway?' I reverted per reasons stated on your talk page. Drastic cuts like this should often be discussed first, precisely because they are big and some content should perhaps be retained and because some editors might disagree with the cuts. Being WP:Bold is one thing. But when you are reverted on such big cuts, you should then discuss the matter on the talk page instead of automatically reverting." So if you are going to tell the story, tell the whole story. The sources for the Mental health section of the West article are solid, except for one source. The sources are WP:BLP-compliant. So I am right about the sourcing. Whether or not the content should stay is another matter. As for the Britney Spears article, any one with a lick of sense can see that I am right about that matter. I was not the one questioning the existence of a Legacy section for someone who has had as much impact on the music industry as Britney Spears. I was not the one questioning the reliability of solid sources in contrast to what WP:BIASED states. That was you, as was your belittling of the subject. Quite frankly, your behavior and rationales have convinced me that you should not be editing these articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:56, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have spent plenty of time discussing things with you Flyer, enough to know that there are some serious competence issues. Your mischaracterization of me is one thing (I am certainly not belittling Britney Spears), but your strange views about what constitutes a good source for a BLP is another entirely. I'm not the sort to go reporting people else I would have already, but if I see one more edit by you that restores problematic BLP-related material, I will break the habit of a lifetime.

Apols Cjhard. Poor wording on my part, didn't mean to imply you were one of those reverting. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 02:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I -- the one who is following the rules correctly and is not deleting material left and right because I don't like it -- have the competence issues? Yeah...sure. You have been behaving recklessly this way for years. Remember that good time in 2013, when you were removing sources because you viewed using People magazine and similar sources as WP:BLP violations? Yeah, the community didn't agree with you then either. Go ahead and revisit Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 157#RfC: Is People magazine a reliable source for BLPs?. As seen from reading the RfC, consensus was that the source is reliable for BLP articles. It was not considered a tabloid journalism source by the vast majority of editors. The closer also clarified for anyone who might misinterpret the "contentious" aspect of the close. And, here in 2017, look at this silly edit you made at the Bradley Cooper article; like FrB.TG told you there, "Stop removing well-sourced content without prior discussion; they are not speculations he has a child with the last of her for crying out loud." So, yeah, I don't think anyone needs a WP:BLP lesson from you. And your denial that you belittled Spears doesn't give me any assurance as to your competence either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and do feel free to report me. It won't work. At all. But I won't begrudge you for trying. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nice strawman. I had issues with various tabloids but I wasn't focused on People. I questioned its usage once I do remember, the fact there was an RfC about it shows there was valid reason to be a little concerned. That was four years ago. That Bradley Cooper edit looks fine to me, except I may have inadvertenty cut some less-than important info along with the rest of the absolute twaddle. Anyway, the correct venue for this tedious back-and-forth is that still-open AN/I report of yours. Disengaging now. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a strawman; just a little background information on your line of thinking. And I could pull out diffs as well since I'm sure I remember what you stated back then more than you do. As this note shows, the People RfC was started because of disruptive deletions that were tied to the source. In that case, I was mainly focused on a different editor, whose deletions and rationales were emboldening others (including you). The WP:ANI case is one venue, but there is also the matter of your continued edit warring...which is why you were reported at this venue as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More reverting here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:06, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Hillbillyholiday broke WP:3RR by making four reverts on August 19. I decided to check the source at mtv.com. In the light of what is written there, I don't see that calling Spears' behavior 'a very public meltdown' is a violation of BLP, certainly not for the purposes intended by the BLP exception to 3RR. The 3RR BLP exception is intended for things like unsourced defamation where the offending material is so flagrant it needs to be removed immediately without waiting for a discussion. In this case the behavior of Britney Spears is not in dispute and the only question is how to give it the most apt description, which is a matter of WP:UNDUE. This needs editor consensus to resolve. In my opinion User:Hillbillyholiday should be blocked unless they will make a concession that ensures this problem won't continue. For example, by agreeing to take a break from the article. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EdJohnston, keep in mind that this editor is still edit warring across a number of articles. It's not just the Britney Spears article. Hillbillyholiday's edit warring may stop at the Britney Spears article, but it will likely continue at the other articles, like Shia LaBeouf. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Ed. I'm done. Gonna log off for a few days. I must say I disagree with your opinion about using "meltdown", however. You may need to warn FlightTime for edit-warring at Britney's page as well. --Hillbillyholiday (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page

Will Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC) ""Please do not remove this message until conditions to do so are met. ", I will write a bot to do this forever , so your only option is to discuss. Undid revision 796354585 by 331dot (talk)"
2. 07:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Please follow the rules " Discuss and resolve this issue before removing this message." Undid revision 796354362 by Jim1138 (talk)"
3. 07:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796354191 by Jim1138 (talk)"
4. 07:37, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Just because you failed to read, does not mean there was no reason supplied. Undid revision 796353529 by Darylgolden (talk)"
5. 07:29, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 796353169 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 07:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC) to 07:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
   1. 07:25, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "This is clearly an autobiography, you might as well used I in your sentences Will"
   2. 07:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "There is no way anyone is looking this information up, this is way to much information for someone of so little singificance. This is clearly just self promotion using Wikipedia, thats not what Wikipedia is for Will."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Will Wilkinson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 07:46, 20 August 2017 (UTC) "/* Notability */"

Comments:

I came across this page with Confusingfuture edit warring. They may be correct in their claim, but they are going about it the wrong way. Threatening to "write a bot to do this forever" (i.e. reverting) is not helpful. 331dot (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [31]
2. [32]
3. [33]
4. [34]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] I did not even notice that my edits were being reverted while I was making improvements. So, the user has violated the 3RR before any attempt to resolve the dispute was even possible.

Comments:

I noticed while making a series of edits to an article that someone was undoing my edits while I was making them. They have not explained why they were doing so. They have reverted four times in 33 minutes, Three times they did not leave an edit summary. One time they did, but it made no sense and did not explain why they were undoing my edits. 61.230.128.51 (talk) 11:44, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is one of several hundred used by a banned editor. He has been edit warring against other editors on this article during the last 24 hours and has done so over a period of at least four years. This article had to be protected because of his edit warring over the same petty point. It goes back to 2013 [36], [37], [38], 2014 [39], [40] etc.

During the past 24 hours he has made the same edit five times [41], [42], [43], [44], [45].

This point has been discussed on the talk page at Talk:Ian Gow#RfC: Name the car or not? and the discussion found that the car should be named. It was explained to him today [46] but the IP does not accept it.

As he has done today, he usually comes here pretending to be a new editor, bleating about people reverting him for no reason and playing the innocent. Some of his other edits are kept when they appear to be useful, but others are reverted because they aren't particularly good (like some of these). We are not obliged to keep any edits by banned editors, regardless of 3RR, per WP:BANREVERT. This editor will continue to waste people's time for as long as Wikipedia exists, or for as long as he lives. This is not a reason to ignore him. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:03, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This editor seems to have mistaken me for someone else. I had not seen any previous discussion of the issue. I see no relevance to the information that I removed. I asked in an edit summary for someone to point me to a guideline which would support its inclusion; they did not do so. I find this editor's aggressive personal attacks to be as disruptive as their reverting of my edits. If they think my edits "aren't particularly good", they are obliged to explain why they think that. 61.230.128.51 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you ignore this? [47] You seem to know an awful lot about WP procedure; you were terribly quick to come here the minute you thought I violated 3RR, yet you had already violated it yourself, using two different IPs. I'm not obliged to explain anything to you, as you are banned. Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:22, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about stop this nonsense about banned. I am not banned. You cannot declare me so. If your interest is in improving articles, you'll drop this rubbish now. 61.230.128.51 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are banned. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:33, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note. Blocked the IP as an obvious sock of WP:BKFIP. The article history shows that he's been targeting the same edits here since his stint in Chile. He's apparently on an Asian circuit at the moment: see 124.154.166.56 (talk) above, which can be linked to previous targets. I've blocked the current IP. Kuru (talk) 12:52, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Genesis (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 84.217.194.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [49]
2. [50]
3. [51]
4. [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

Slow burning edit war; IP keeps trying to add Ray Wilson to the lead despite nobody agreeing Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:43, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]