Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive272

Page

Bob Simon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Zoomjet3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */Prior to my addition to the page, there was a complete absence of any reference to decades of controversy and criticism

of Bob Simon as an exemplar of media bias against The State of Israel.

This longstanding outrage against Simon is easil..."

1. 18:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

1. 10:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

1. 21:01, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

1. Consecutive edits made from 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC) to 21:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 21:18, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

1. 1. 21:35, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

1. 1. 21:50, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

1. 23:41, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

1. 23:46, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career.

There are innumerable articles on the Internet, beginning in the 1980s and continuing to at least 2014, which demonstrate that m..."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:43, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bob Simon."

Diffs after warnings

1. 02:53, February 14, 2015‎ (UTC) "/* Career */I added this edit to give the reader an accurate understanding of ongoing controversy regarding Simon's career. --Light show (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Zoomjet3 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --Light show (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

Nellore district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:34, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
2. 14:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
3. 18:45, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
4. 13:58, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"
2. 07:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Materialscientist.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

Nidhi Razdan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

NidhiRazdan77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647088928 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
2. 11:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647088776 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
3. 11:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647088639 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
4. 11:44, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647087898 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
5. 11:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647087612 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 09:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC) to 09:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 09:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647075864 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
   2. 09:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647075877 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
   3. 09:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647075888 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
   4. 09:36, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647076097 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
   5. 09:37, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647076182 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 08:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC) to 08:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 08:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647058182 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
   2. 08:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647058327 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"
   3. 08:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647058555 by Nidhi ndtv (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

We have a strange situation in that we have two editors,

conflict of interest problem. Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Nidhi ndtv and an IP were both blocked for 24 hours by JodyB. I'm assuming the IP belongs to NidhiRazdan77 who stopped logging in but continued reverting, so I blocked the account for the same 24 hours. The article has also been locked by yet another administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Seems to have page ownership problems and is repeatedly undoing good edits citing Removing non-encyclopaedic [Removing non-encyclopaedic drivel and Non-encyclopaedic and non-grammatical drivel. and then just removing for the sake of removing.1 2 3. And also on 1 2 3 I could go on but whats the point. 88.105.146.18 (talk) 09:50, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Note Not done anything wrong but removed informative tag from user page with this response. Blatantly doesn't accept responsibility and knows what he is upto.}} 88.105.146.18 (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

GGJ's edits seem sound to me and I agree with the "Non-encyclopaedic and non-grammatical drivel" comment.

WP:BOOMERANG might apply. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

David Ross (businessman) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:47, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 645714256 by Sitush (talk) removing accuracy of figures, go away sitush"
2. 13:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647100187 by Sitush (talk) my figures are precise"
3. 13:55, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647100761 by Sitush (talk) the source is inaccurate, PwC figures are definitive"
4. 13:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647101081 by Sitush (talk) vandalism"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndcarr&diff=647101121&oldid=647100414
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndcarr&diff=647101350&oldid=647101121
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AAndcarr&diff=643946194&oldid=643946074

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated edit-warring against BLP policy - see the article history and the editor's record of warnings and blocks for the same behaviour. Squinge (talk) 15:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

Sioux City, Iowa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:09, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 646907524 by VeryCrocker (talk)"
2. 16:49, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647110473 by Squinge (talk)"
3. 17:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647123092 by VeryCrocker (talk)"
4. 18:10, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647123928 by VeryCrocker (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 17:25, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on
   TW
   )"
2. 17:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The second of two new accounts (the other being

• Blocked indefinitely Stonecoldbeach and Younghopper15.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Page: Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: new edit ( by agreement following protracted discussion)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 21:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
2. 00:21, 14 February 2015
3. 11:22, 14 February 2015
4. 15:45, 14 February 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 16:12, 14 February 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: first post; thread

Comments:

Scolaire (talk) 16:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Diff 1 is Scolaire's own edit. So there are three diffs not 4. And I just got a thank you from Qexigator for that fourth edit in which I edited what they put in, not Scolaire, and talk page diif is what they said about the state after that.

Dmcq (talk

)

Apologies, I linked to the original edit a second time, instead of Dmcq's first revert. I've fixed it now. It was four reverts. Scolaire (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies then but you don't have a consensus for your preferred form as Qexigator and I both prefer the current form. Do you wish to revert to before any of the changes and we can continue the discussion as per BRD like I had considered earlier?

Dmcq (talk

) 17:08, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay have read 3RR and reverted my latest edit.

Dmcq (talk

) 17:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

In my view this reference is approaching intimidatory vexation and should be closed immediately. The worst that can be said is that Dmcq incautiously used some mildly vulgar word when he could have used a more decorous one in opposing Scolaire. Anyone editing the article should disregard intemperate remarks prompted by irritation, and move on with the work collaboratively or leave it alone. I see no reason to regard Dmcq as one of those who need this kind of treatment.Anyone who looks at the talk page can see that. Qexigator (talk) 17:58, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

And that has what to do with 3RR? Scolaire (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since Dmcq has undone his own 15:45 edit to avoid exceeding 3RR. The parties seem to be working on a compromise draft at
  WP:RFC. The page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration is available for discussions. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 21:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [4]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments: This page is under

I'm very relieved to see that issues regarding this editor have been raised here. I am having extreme issues with ElCommandanteVzl on both

Sectarianism and minorities in the Syrian Civil War and Bashar al-Assad. On the latter article he is even blanking entire sections without explanation. I understand this user is editing Wikipedia with a specific point of view (which can be deduced from their username), but that doesn't mean they can routinely delete reliable high quality references that they apparently don't like and ignore neutrality policies. Nulla Taciti (talk

) 18:51, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I am seeing this same behavior - reverting multiple edits without explanation - by this editor on other articles, as well, also in a topic area subject to 1RR restrictions: [8] I invented "it's not you, it's me" (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:27, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

2015 Six Nations Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log

)

Previous version reverted to

1. 18:56, 14 februari 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 11:39, 15 februari 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647232482 by
   WP:NOTSTATS
   "
2. 09:07, 15 februari 2015 (UTC) "says
   WP:NOTSTATS
   "
3. 00:15, 15 februari 2015 (UTC) "/* Statistics */ top 10 is quite sufficient, thank you"
4. 20:18, 14 februari 2015 (UTC) "/* Statistics */ top 10 is sufficient"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:02 15 Februari 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:59, 15 februari 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

• Jay
  18:12, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• From
  WP:3RR: "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Since your first edit did undo part of the action of another editor, yes that can be interpreted as a revert. But ultimately that decision is up to the administrators and not me. I'm going to state the reason why I made the report and thus what it would like the outcome of this would be. I would love you to realize that repeatedly reverting an edit is not the way to get an article in your preferred version when having a disagreement. You made four reverts within 24 hours, which is a violation of WP:3RR, and you only went to the talk page after making those reverts. That's the exact opposite of what you should have done. Ideally, you should have gone to the talk page to discuss with the other editor(s) and progress towards a consensus after your first revert was undone and worst case you should have done so after the your second revert was undone as well. You certainly shouldn't have made another two reverts. That the content you disagree with would remain in the article while you're conducting the discussion at all is no problem whatsoever. After all it was no disturbing content that was being discussed. Seeing your block log you seem to have quite an issue with refraining from edit warring. Just don't do it. It only gets yourself into troubles. Tvx
  1 20:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

There is a current RfC about the issue at Talk:2015_Six_Nations_Championship. Both sides have agreed to talk this over. I'm in favor of letting consensus build itself rather than sanctions as both sides have backed away from edit warring. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:09, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed this, there's an ongoing discussion about 2015 Six Nations Championship, following an agreement not to continue the edit war. I don't think he should be punished, because I think both him and myself were at fault. We both should have gone to the talkpages earlier, but my continued reversion of his edits meant that he broke 3RR before a proper discussion began. I did also warn him after the 4th edit, and in my opinion that should be enough of a punishment. If he's punished, I feel that I should receive the same punishment, as although I didn't break 3RR, I was also responsible for the offending edit war. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:24, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The first of the four edits may not be a revert, and there is an active discussion. But
  User:PeeJay2K3 is advised to be more careful in the future. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 00:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [10]
2. [11]
3. [12]
4. [13]
5. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Advice on users talk page:[17] and here [18]

Comments:
There is a false impression being given here that all interventions by the complaining editor were attempts to to resolve this edit war . They were not. Some of them were defenses or the other half of this edit war by the complainer, The editor complained about is fairly new and may not in fact be aware of their talk page as they have not replied to any of the messages on it. He/She has chosen a tough page in Circumcision to edit. I recommend a gentle approach in this case. He/she has indicated in this diff edit label an awareness of edit warring and a resolve to stop doing it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circumcision&diff=prev&oldid=647231382 --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 17:29, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. It is risky to charge into a highly contentious article in the belief you can fix it. User:Cirflow did engage in discussion but did not stop editing the article while doing so. It is better to wait for discussion to finish before making controversial changes. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Page: Yemen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ali.M.A.Saadi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24] [25] [26]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments: User:ClueBot NG is all over this disruptive editor, so it may be a moot point, but User:Ali.M.A.Saadi has been edit-warring on Yemen for the past couple of days and I'd appreciate if an administrator could step in. Thanks in advance. -Kudzu1 (talk) 07:23, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 24 hours. Not a 3RR but this is edit warring. Repeatedly changing the name of the leader of Yemen. EdJohnston (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 11 Feb version before reverts started or this edit today which added a second source

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [27]
2. [28]
3. [29]
4. [30]
5. [31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [32]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User has refused to discuss matter at article talk page, instead escalating directly to AN/I: [33]

Comments:

User has been invited to discuss the matter on the talk page. User has alternately branded the edits as slanderous or said they've resulted in death threats to the article's subject. User has also expressed intent to continue to edit the article even after passing 3RR. I regret that a block appears to be the next step needed for this user; as I'm involved, I can't place the block myself. —C.Fred (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours -- GB fan 01:40, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Page: Poll tax (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Yaksar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(I apologize for the length, but this is a long term issue and not a

Previous version reverted to: Revision of page before the involvement of Yaksar or Srnec

First change of content by the parties:

1. 14:57, 29 October 2014 Srnec turns the page into a redirect to
   Tax per head

Diffs of the user's reverts (all times PST, as that's my time zone):

1. 15:23, 29 October 2014 Yaksar reverts Srnec's initial change - back to a disambiguation (dab) page
2. 18:59, 1 November After some cleanup edits, Srnec reverts to a redirect
3. 19:04, 1 November Yaksar reverts to a dab page
4. 12:15, 2 November Srnec reverts to a redirect to
   Tax per head
5. 20:29, 2 November Yaksar reverts one revision, then realizes there were two edits by Srnec, and reverts back to the dab page
6. 14:46, 3 November Srnec removes most of the entries from the dab page
7. 23:33, 6 November After an intervening edit by another user (cleaning up the page per
   WP:MOSDAB
   , Yaksar reverts to the full dab page
8. 07:30, 17 December Srnec reverts to a redirect to
   Tax per head
9. 14:17, 12 January 2015 Yaksar reverts to a dab page
10. 16:35, 12 January Srnec reverts to a redirect
11. 17:29, 12 January Yaksar reverts to a dab page
12. 17:24, 13 January Srnec reverts to a redirect
13. 20:36, 13 January Yaksar reverts to a dab page
14. 04:34, 14 January Srnec removes moce of the entries from the dab page
15. 10:40, 14 January Yaksar reverts Srnec's removals
16. 11:00, 14 January Srnec adds a {{POV}} tag to the page
17. 11:18, 14 January Yaksar reverts the addition of the {{POV}} tag
18. 08:05, 17 January Srnec reverts to a redirect
19. 12:05, 17 January Yaksar reverts to a dab page
20. 18:11, 5 February Srnec reverts to a redirct
21. 12:17, 13 February Yaksar reverts to a dab page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Yaksar Srnec

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yaksar and Srnec's one statement to each other relating to this issue on User talk:Srnec, and Yaksar and Srnec's one statement to each other on Talk:Poll tax

Comments:

The article was stable as a redirect for three years (October 2011 to October 2014), until it was changed because of a misconstrual of a requested move. Srnec (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What should be done about a very long-running edit war? Full protection might seem unfair to other editors, since only two people are responsible. They should be sanctioned if they won't negotiate. I invite both parties to comment here and promise to wait for consensus before making further changes. EdJohnston (talk) 21:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

What specifically to you want me to comment on? Srnec (talk) 22:14, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

You should agree to make no further edits at Poll tax that don't have prior consensus on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:45, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both User:Srnec and User:Yaksar are warned. If you make any further changes at Poll tax that don't have a prior talk page consensus you may be blocked. Feel free to open any discussion that offers hope of resolving the matter permanently. EdJohnston (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Apologies EdJohnston, Niceguyedc -- didn't have a chance to weigh in and point out some issues that were not brought up here. But as long as changes moving forward first find talk page consensus everything should be smooth sailing and there's really no need to delve into past issues further.--Yaksar (let's chat) 03:42, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

2015 Chapel Hill shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 05:25, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* International reactions */ "Palestine" does not exist. Removed."
2. 05:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647353627 by WWGB (talk)"
3. 05:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647353272 by Aumnamahashiva (talk)"
4. 05:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647353177 by WWGB (talk)"
5. 05:13, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647352723 by Classicfilms (talk)"
6. 05:05, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* International reactions */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Unrepentant and flagrant 3RR violation, removing well-sourced material with no attempt at discussion beyond making the (false) claim that "Palestine does not exist" in edit summaries. Regardless of one's opinion on the Israeli/Palestine question, it's not a matter of debate that there is a place and government called Palestine. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Support block, disruptive editing. WWGB (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose There is no such place as "Palestine". 124.180.167.228 (talk) 05:35, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

Nellore district (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:56, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"
2. 13:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Notable people from the district */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (
   TW
   )"
2. 14:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:121.242.73.226_reported_by_User:Vin09_.28Result:_Blocked.29. IP has done it again. Vin09 (talk) 14:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for two weeks. Please DO NOT EVER call it "vandalism" if all someone is doing is 'adding himself to the list of notable residents'. That's inappropriate, but it's not vandalism. "Vandalism" implies "I think that you are deliberately adding garbage to the article", and this individual does not think that he is doing anything wrong. DS (talk) 15:08, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

Loma Linda University Medical Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:09, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647195799 by Kikichugirl (talk)"
2. 18:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 18:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Similar institutions (e.g., Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins) Wikipedia pages are not smeared with like information. Let's be fair here. It's not common practice to list relatively insignificant information like this on huge institutions' pages."
4. Consecutive edits made from 18:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC) to 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 18:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "minor edits"
   2. 18:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647428277 by 331dot (talk), Not a large removal."
5. 18:27, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647429060 by 331dot (talk). See Talk item from 2008 giving reasons why section should be removed. This edit is 7 years overdue."
6. 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647429649 by 331dot (talk). Am I to take it that you represent the consensus?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:42, February 16, 2015 (UTC) Posted on talk page but still reverted the section

Comments:

I'm not sure if User:331dot was also under violation here, here, here, here, here, and here, or if they are exempt because IP was being particularly disruptive by edit-warring. — kikichugirl ^speak up! 21:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Reverting blankings are exempt from 3RR enforcement, see

WP:NOT3RR. --AmaryllisGardener ^talk

21:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed didnt report other user as they were undoing what was in my opinion vandalism. Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• The IP user has reverted the page twice even while the issue is being discussed; second time here. 331dot (talk) 21:32, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours I agree with Amortias here; the IP was fairly set on getting rid of the material despite being sourced and probably relevant and kept going despite being reverted by three other users. 331dot didn't do anything wrong in this case, although it would be better to stop after the third revert to be on the safe side. Bjelleklang - talk 21:45, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bjelleklang: I will do my best to keep that in mind for the future. Thank you for the advice. 331dot (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

The Fallout of 1956 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Danylo7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 03:09, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 03:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 03:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 03:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 03:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
8. 03:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
9. 03:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
10. Consecutive edits made from 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC) to 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
    1. 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 03:01, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User continuously removes deletion tags from page. -War wizard90 (talk) 03:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: since being reported user has vandalized both the related AfD and this page (deleted report about himself). -War wizard90 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Now blocked and article deleted. Meters (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Page: East Timor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Inocencio.alves (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments: Repeated vandalism and edit-warring, introducing nonsense text at the top of the article. Pretty cut-and-dried.

And now continuing to vandalize the page even after being notified of the 3RR discussion: [41] -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The user is a

• User has been disruptively editing many other pages too, check his contributions. I've reverted many of them. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 16:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Page: Amy Pascal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zigzig20s (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2014-02-17 01:22 [43] (reverting [44])
2. 2014-02-17 00:26 [45] (reverting [46])
3. 2014-02-17 00:08 [47] (reverting [48])
4. 2014-02-16 21:17 [49] (reverting [50] × 3—note whitespace)
5. 2014-02-15 19:35 [51] (rollback [52] × 7‒note non-vandalism deployment rollback)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning

[53]

Diffs of attempts to resolve on article talk page

Talk:Amy Pascal#WP:BRD February 2015, Talk:Amy Pascal/Archives/2015#Notability establishment (permadiffs [54] [55])

Comments

3RR observed on

WP:ANI#Legal threat and harassment on Amy Pascal's talkpage (permadiff [56]) and User talk:Gilliam#Rollback use (permadiff [57]). —Sladen (talk

) 02:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I am not "edit-warring". My lack of understanding of "rollback" only happened once and has been fixed. This is simply another case of harassment on Sladen's part because of the ANI and his attempt to edit Amy Pascal's page in a way that flouts the third-party references. When Sladen censored/removed Lisa Kudrow's referenced quote, I added it back and added two more references for example. Please discuss on my talkpage if in doubt.Zigzig20s (talk) 02:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I arrived at this article as the result of an RfC and find this user very difficult to work with. Elinruby (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but you introduced yourself by leaving a hysterical personal attack on the talkpage earlier today; this is ridiculous...Zigzig20s (talk) 02:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That seems really unnecessary, Zigzig, what you just said seems like a personal attack, i'm not looking at the Talkpage. Do you want help or not? --doncram 03:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment from non-involved non-admin editor:

• I reviewed the 5 diffs and they all look different. They are 5 separate reversions by Zigzig20s, with no repetition of removal of the same material. So this is not a 3RR violation, at all. One was a reversion of an edit by Sladen that Sladen themself had labeled in edit summary as being very
  wp:BRD
  process is to DISCUSS at Talk page. The last listed one included numerous copyedit small changes which I think overall improved the article (except for an accidental garbling of "Hollywood Reporter" in one place), yet Z reverted. I think there's no Edit Warring violation, this should be dismissed.
• There was complaint about Z's use of rollback on one of those, but that seems to be understood as not correct, expect no future problems.
• I do think that Z's repeated use of reverting could be seen as unpleasant and controlling, perhaps too
  wp:OWN, and Z's use of dismissive edit summaries would be irritating, so I can understand some frustration by other editors. Z, for what it's worth, I suggest you be nicer, and reimplement the last edit for example, and not fight over tiny copyedit word changes, and generally pick your battles not dispute everything, which it kinda looks like you are doing. But again, no EW violation at all, so this should be dismissed. --doncram
  03:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Note: It's noted by Bjelleklang below, that in fact

wp:3RR does not require the reversions to be of the same material, so I was wrong about that, and 3RR violation did occur. I did view the multiple reversions as too controlling and causing difficulty for collaboration; good that 3RR policy actually rules that it is wrong. --doncram

17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I reverted the last edit on second thoughts, even though it seems a bit off topic...It's not especially relevant to Pascal. But one sentence is fine I suppose.Zigzig20s (talk) 04:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's about the last-implemented reversion, which might be the first one listed above? Which had edit summary merely "irrelevant". About that, I think it would have been better for you to have just copied it to the talk page forn discussion, or perhaps removed it to the Talk page rather than outright deleting it, fine that's back. Thanks.

But actually I was referring to the last-listed one above, this reversion of a number of small edits by User:Elinruby, which to me looks like all-okay wording edits except for accidental intro of a spelling error into "Holywood Reporter" at one point. Oh, now I see Z's reversion was reverted next by Sladen so maybe all those changes by Elinruby stayed in the article after all. That was the rollback edit, i gather that was discussed elsewhere, with no edit summary, no explanation, because using rollback, which won't happen further. --doncram 06:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Operating on a 0RR/1RR basis would be ideal, it does though get hard work for all when minor

WP:REVERT as a last-resort in cases of clear vandalism in which wording (after trying) is too hard to improve—and in all cases where a revert is used please try to be the one initiating discussion afterwards. —Sladen (talk

) 10:04, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Declined Although there was a violation (3RR applies to any material not several reverts of the same material), I'm going to decline this one based on the discussion here and on the article talkpage and also per the points listed by Doncram above. Bjelleklang - talk 11:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647152815 by Twofortnights (talk)"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC) to 02:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647152815 by Twofortnights (talk)"
   2. 02:24, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Visa requirements */"
3. 16:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC) "Did you even care to read the reference/sources before you removed the edit? Please learn to check, or I will report you."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

IP editor has been blocked twice already this year for same behaviour and is currently involved in edit warring over three articles. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

I was about to report this user myself.

Diff of my 3RR Warning: [62]

Further reverts: [63],[64] (I think that makes 4 in 24 hrs)

Additional follow up in talk: [65]

Various replies to warnings and attempts to discuss with the guy: [66], [67]

Lack of good faith: [68]

Basic problem with the edit, is he relies on interpreting one primary piece of legislation, the 2002 Act, whilst ignoring the multiple other acts that preceded it, which had impacts on some territories not others and so there is some variance in citizenship right by territory. WCM_email 19:04, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• IP blocked for 1 month. MastCell ^Talk 17:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Page

Airbus A320neo family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "The A320neo is not a new aircraft. There are no errors in this edit."
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC) to 16:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Once again someone is removing facts from a Wikipedia article. My information is correct. It is a re-engine program. "It doesn't seem right" is not a valid excuse for removing my addition to the article."
   2. 16:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
3. Consecutive edits made from 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC) to 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
   1. 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647570993 by Denniss (talk)"
   2. 16:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 16:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 647571539 by Denniss (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:41, 17 February 2015 (UTC) "/* Removal of relevant text and edits. */"

Comments:

User keeps on reverting, no attempt to engage in a discussion about this. Multiple user undid his changes (also made as IP before). Denniss (talk) 17:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 and User:Trymeonce are possibly the same. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Update: Other edits of Special:Contributions/71.51.220.0 were reverted by other users. IP seems to be static. 95.119.52.79 (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm waiting for one of the several users that continue to delete my addition to prove that the plane is a new-build aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trymeonce (talk • contribs) 17:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No one needs to prove anything to you. What you do need to do stop edit warring and discuss any changes you are making, you are well and truly past 3RR which is a bright line rule with few exceptions, none of which are likely to apply here. Also, you should be

WP:RS as the statements are already sourced later. Nil Einne (talk

) 18:02, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

BTW, beyond the comments above, the editor has actually engaged in some discussion at Talk:Airbus A320neo family#Removal of relevant text and edits., but their comments there don't seem to provide sufficient support for their changes and they are also simulataneously reverting and have now reached 7R I think without anyone else breaking the 3, and that's not counting the IP. Nil Einne (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Oh and I just noticed is also including some pure vandalism in their most recent edits, calling editors facist pigs in the article [69]. Nil Einne (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Blocked at

WP:AIV for 36 hours by User:MilborneOne. Amortias (T)(C

) 18:51, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Page: Khanjar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bloom6132 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [70]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [71]
2. [72]
3. [73]
4. [74]
5. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]

Comments:I tried to discuss this problem with User:Bloom6132 here [78] and here [79] and here [80] but User:Bloom6132 reverted my talk page comments. I asked that the discussion be taken to the articles talk page but User:Bloom6132 did not do that. After User:Bloom6132 reverted my initial edits I added valid references but my edits were still reverted. User:Bloom6132 has frequently edited this article and I feel that there may be some ownership issue here. I just want the information that I added to the article using valid references to be included in the article so that people reading it will get accutate information, something that is not happening with the current article.70.196.131.82 (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a complete pack of lies by this stuck–up IP. He reverted my edits here without even adding an

WP:BOOMERANG here. —Bloom6132 (talk

) 11:15, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Bloom6132, editors do not claim ownership, they show it through their actions, I added references which you said were lacking, and you reverted again, the article is completely one sided, it totaly fails to mention the Indo-Persian forms of the dagger known as a khanjar, this is not what wikipedia is about, I added completely relevant information and when you mentioned that my information was not referenced I added two references, I could add more but you showed by your actions that you do not intend to allow ANY additional information to be added to this article. I tried to reach you through your talk page but you reverted that instead of engaging in some sort of conversation, I mentioned going to the articles talk page but you did not respond, I added a comment on the talk page and you still have not responded. You reverted the warring warning I put on your talk page along with the link to this discussion and you left a very uncivil comment (Reverting hypocritical bullshit warnings by 70.196.131.82.).[81]. I did not removed referenced information from the article, I moved it further down the article to a more appropriate section. Your comments when reverting other editors edits are not appropriate>(Removing problematic additions. All info added is unsourced, and using the phrase "is a word used" is completely redundant – just state what it is.) (No reason given for unexplained and unjustified reversion. Stop edit warring.) (Fixing badly butchered lead. This article is a GA; writing style should reflect that.) (Removed unsourced section. There's only one main type of khanjar – the one from Oman. Any other supposed versions of it are minor and should be placed elsewhere in the GA.) (I'm bringing up legitimate points, while you lie and claim I'm WP:OWNing this article. I even compromised and allowed your edits to stand, but it looks like YOU have ownership issues by insisting that YOUR version is final. Grow up.) these are not the comments of someone who is open minded and capable of compromise.70.196.134.123 (talk) 02:27, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected, both editors warned. Conducting a revert war with a fluctuating IP violates
  WP:SOCK. User:Bloom6132 broke 3RR and was risking a block. Neither party has so far used the talk page to discuss these issues. Consider opening a discussion there. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 05:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Page: Danish pastry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Peter Isotalo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [82]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [83]
2. [84]
3. [85]
4. [86]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page is active and there are various threads on the issues.

Comments:

Note that all 4 reverts are clearly marked as reverts, and that the user chose to revert despite getting the 3RR warning. The "previous" version is not relevant here, since the article is fluid, but they represent edits that undid previous editors contributions.

Last comment from the user after i asked him to self-revert[88] at reaching 4RR: [89]: ":No, I'm not. Mostly because you simply keep making shit up and ignoring my arguments. Serge certainly is. Take it Serge's AN/I-thread if you don't like it."

Clear breach of bright-line rule, and not giving a damn!

Kim D. Petersen 18:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Please note that these reverts are mostly of different content or merely partial reverts. Kim is also an involved party in an extremely prolonged and frustrating debate relating to Danish pastry. There have been incivilities and personal attacks, and now there's also an AN/I-thread filed by SergeWoodzing.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Peter... 3RR is a bright-line rule. It doesn't matter if it is different content, what matters is that they are seperate reverts of other editors on the same article within 24 hours. Please read up upon

WP:3RR. This wasn't my preferred route, but your comment clearly stated that you didn't give a damn. --Kim D. Petersen

18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

IF it is not the same content then it is not a revert. Separate reverts of different content doesnt count for 3rr purposes. If that were the case someone who reverts three different vandalistic edits by three different users would be editwarring.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 18:44, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected for 3 days, multiple editors reverting each other. 3RR technically was violated (Maunus, it can technically be 3 different things, per some section of the
  WP:3RR page I can't bring myself to hunt down), but really quite innocuously (in 2 cases, very clear inarguable corrections of English usage, with no real change in meaning). Hopefully protection will calm the waters on both sides. I'd recommend not blocking, but after a couple of rouge page protections I'm probably considered "involved" by somebody so I won't close it. --Floquenbeam (talk
  ) 19:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, that is news to me, the policy must have been changed. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 19:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Has been that way ever since my first edit on WP - which was sometime in 2006 iirc. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Why was the page protected? Despite the above 3RR violation, it doesn't really seem as if there is editwarring going on. --Kim D. Petersen 19:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Ie. was any other editor close to the bright-line? And what do you think that the "i don't give a damn!" attitude towards our 3RR rule merits? I wouldn't have put this up, if Peter hadn't stated that he didn't give a flying ... about editwarring and other editors. --Kim D. Petersen 19:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And as an addendum: Why have you protected the talk page??? How are people supposed to resolve the disputes now? --Kim D. Petersen 19:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you put this up because you didn't feel you got enough respect, you're not exactly making your 3RR case stronger. The rule exists solely for the protection of articles, not to enforce respect between disputing parties.

Peter ^Isotalo 19:58, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

What on earth does this have to do with "respect"? This isn't a game. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. --Kim D. Petersen 20:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Appeal to the closing admin: Please unprotect the page, or at the very least the talk-page after examining this case. Despite the reverts the article is actually pretty stable, and there are ongoing discussions at the talk page. It seems rather contrary to our

WP:Page protection policy to do it this way. As far as i can tell, Peter is the only one who edit-warred in any serious consideration of the word, and not even that was very serious... it was the "i don't give a damn about editwarring" attitude that made me report this case. --Kim D. Petersen

19:49, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I must say that full protection was a bit drastic, but I'm actually starting to like it. If anything, it might cool down things and focus them on actual article improvement. Overall, discussion has been focused on how to accommodate the personal opinions of Kim, RhinoMind and Serge.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Its rather unfortunate to state this, but it seems that User:Peter Isotalo is treating this (and Wikipedia) as a game (see [90][91]). --Kim D. Petersen 20:05, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It's called "fun", Kim. Try it some time.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not "fun" when it results in disrupting wikipedia Peter. --Kim D. Petersen 20:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, that's some serious shit, this disruption business. You better report me right away. I'm sure

AN/I

will take note.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

civil... --Kim D. Petersen

21:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Kim D. Petersen about a very cavalier attitude and would like to add that it only takes Peter about 3 seconds to revert things he doesn't like in an article he's guarding. Obviously that gives him no time to use talk pages before reverting. It can't give any normal human being, especially one who is conscientious about any kind of work, time even to think a bit before taking constructive action. It just gives one time to do exactly as one pleases. As far as I know, most of us are trying to create and maintain a reasonably respectable encyclopedia? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course I'm not a normal human being. I'm a Wikipedia Terrorist.[92]

Peter ^Isotalo 20:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Could i ask you politely to stop having "fun", and take this issue seriously? --Kim D. Petersen 20:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I think we can rest our case now and let other neutral people chime in. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:30, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

You need to add som diffs, though. Gonna be hard for them neutral folk to get a handle on this otherwise.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to

WP:AGF Peter, and not assume that you are bragging about how good you are at disguising your behavior, as your comment would indicate. And instead assume that you simply couldn't desist baiting, because you are having "fun". Please don't. --Kim D. Petersen

21:39, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Bishonen's talkpage is a moot issue. It's user talk space. Many users, and sometimes myself, use it to let off steam. No names are named, no accusations are made, but we sometimes make facetious comments about our activities as Wikipedians, including disputes we are involved with. If you can't see the comedy in a heated dispute about a type of pastry, you've developed an awfully high opinion of yourself.

And I'm not going to feel bad about making tart comments about anyone who calls me "terrorist", or anyone who takes advantage of such spiteful nonsense by accusing me of trolling. For crying out loud, I apologized to Rhino and even attempted an appeal that get back on track. Rhino's response to this was to engage in personal attacks and high-handed accusations against me in a section heading. A section heading, damnit! And then you call me a troll. You even openly accuse me in this thread of disruptive editing.

And after all that spite, you extending me the courtesy of saying you're doing all this in good faith. While griping about baiting of course. How do you expect me to respond? You're in chin flick territory by now.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected three days by User:Floquenbeam. There was a related complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#High handed editing by Peter. Some very experienced people got surprisingly angry about this. I hope this doesn't continue. EdJohnston (talk) 05:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Page: Spanish profanity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walter Sobchak0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)