Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive283

Page: Heleen Mees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.77.138.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 197.242.79.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 81.218.229.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [2]
2. [3]
3. [4]
4. [5]
5. [6]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [7]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [8]

Comments:

From the diffs, it is clear that the same user is using multiple IP addresses in order to edit this article. See this sock puppetry case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bmwz3hm/Archive, it became clear some time ago that someone with a close personal connection was editing this wikipedia article in a self-promotional manner. It has been plagued with sock puppetry. See also Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Heleen Mees. WCM_email 09:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Page now semi-protected this seems moot, I'll put in a sock puppet report later. WCM_email 16:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Page

James Rhodes (pianist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:15, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664209468 by WordSeventeen (talk)WordSeventeen is abusing policy to censor- there is no BLP issue whatsoever."
2. 02:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664209073 by WordSeventeen (talk)m /* Early career */ . There is no blantant BLP issue here. WordSeventeen is abusing the BLP policy . UK Supreme Court is a solid source."
3. 02:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664208345 by WordSeventeen (talk) There is no BLP issue here at all. Read the policy. UK Supreme Court is a solid source."
4. 01:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Career */ Reinstated public material that is sourced to UK Supreme Court website; it is neither libelous nor contentious to include this material"
5. 21:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664183460 by Lightinlondon (talk)"
6. 21:47, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664182240 by Lightinlondon (talk) UK Supreme Court decision provides info that ex-wife is American novelist https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2014-0251-press-summ"
7. 21:37, 26 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664180918 by Lightinlondon (talk) The UK Supreme Court decision (https://www.supremecourt.uk/clearly identifies ex-wife as an American novelist. That is public information."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:07, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:James_Rhodes_(pianist)#Blatant BLP issue

Comments:

The above is a misrepresentation. Additional relevant discussion pertaining to the "edit warring" claim is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard as well as above on this page at User:Lightinlondon reported by User:Joseph2302. The consensus at the Notice Board is that there was no "blatant BLP violation" as WordSeventeen claimed when he began the edit war, which led to him making more than 3 reversions in just 3 hours (listed in the NoticeBoard discussion). There were attempts at reasoned discussion on the talk page. Additionally, an additional secondary (non-primary) citation was added to the one already provided as the discussion on the talk page seemed to indicate doing so would address WordSeventeen's "blatant BLP" claim. After adding the additional non-primary citation, the paragraph WordSeventeen had censored as a "blatant BLP" violation was then re-added. However, another reverted that addition.

Although I had suggested (on the talk page) that WordSeventeen take the issue to the Notice Board rather than revert the addition (as there was no BLP violation, blatant or otherwise), that person did not do that. So I brought the issue to the Notice Board. The incidences mentioned above by Tigearn happened hours before WordSeventeen claimed a "blatant BLP violation" on the page. The statements above misstate the situation. The situation has been misrepresented by both Tigearn above as well as WordSeventeen in that person's claim of the application of 3 reversions.

The relevant evidence for my statements here is primarily on the talk page but also on the NoticeBoard as well as in the editing comments made with talk page edits and the main James Rhodes Wikipedia article. WordSeventeen consistently showed an inability to reason carefully, or to process anything stated on the talk page carefully, including what was already on the talk page before WordSeventeen even began making edits on the main Wikipedia page. In my opinion, the claim of a "blatant BLP violation" at best reflects WordSeventeens grave misunderstanding of what constitutes a "BLP violation" of any kind, as well as a misunderstanding of policy relating to how to handle such matters. At worst, the claim represents WordSeventeen's blatant abuse of a (completely unsubstantiated) claim that there was a "blatant BLP violation" to censor what material appeared on the page.

WordSeventeen's own history of more than 3 reversions in the past 24 hours on that page needs to be investigated. Those reversions are itemized by another editor in the notice board discussion of this issue. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#James_Rhodes

What also needs to be investigated is whether there is any pattern of the editors involved joining in to support one another, even when there is no basis for the initial actions.

What happened in this incident is a good example of Wikipedia gone bad. WordSeventeen came in claiming "blatant BLP" violation (but failed to ever make clear what his objection was; another editor claimed it was due to lack on non-primary citation, but one non-primary citation was originally provided), when there was absolutely none. WordSeventeen was either incapable of engaging in reasoned discussion on the talk page, or was unwilling to do so. Unfortunately, two other editors also chimed in with misunderstandings of the BLP policy. When an attempt was made to fix their objections to the paragraph, which on the talk page was stated to be the lack of multiple non-primary citations (one non-primary, solid citation (The Guardian) was originally provided), that corrected version of the paragraph was removed. Then WordSeventeen misrepresented what happened in the incident, claimed edit warring (when in fact WordSeventeen had engaged in this initially), and requested the page be locked. My conclusion is that this incident, including all that happened on the page (esp. by WordSeventeen) and the edit warring claim which is made here by Tigern, represent a gross twisting of the facts, and blatant abuse of the BLP policy.

Incidents like these are what keeps many people with solid writing and thinking ability from participating in Wikipedia at all. The consensus on the Notice Board pages is that that was no BLP violation whatsoever in the paragraph WordSeventeen removed initially.

Please note there is discussion of WordSeventeen's actions as an editor over at the Administrator's Noticeboard which includes his actions on the James Rhodes Page so perhaps that will address my concerns about what happened in the incident that involved me. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_from_User:WordSeventeen131.191.80.213 (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.191.80.213 (talk) 10:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC) 131.191.80.213 (talk) 15:43, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
WordSeventeen has been blocked for a month, and his Pending Changes Reviewer and Rollback rights have been revoked, for his disruptive editing in this and other incidents; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikihounding_from_User:WordSeventeen131.191.80.213 (talk) 18:56, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Protection of James Rhodes page has been removed; it was put in place after a series of events begun by WordSeventeen's disruptive editing practices. See link immediately above for details.131.191.80.213 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected per a report higher up on this page. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Page

33rd Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jeff.1.1.1.7.8.9.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:00, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "Delete the comment about Humphrey Bogart if you have to, on the 21st Academy Awards page, but otherwise don't delete mine please. I have now added references."
2. 16:49, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "Just like on the page of the 21st Academy Awards it states a similar "popular opinion" about Humphrey Bogart's performance this is a similar style. I have added sources."
3. 16:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664727669 by Wgolf (talk)"
4. 16:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. Consecutive edits made from 15:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC) to 15:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
   1. 15:56, 30 May 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 15:59, 30 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:51, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "/* 33rd Academy Awards */ new section"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

They keep adding questionable content, despite being asked to take it to the talkpage. 3 editors have reverted this change, initially because it was unsourced, but they seem unwilling to discuss it properly. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:03, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:29, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Please also note this SPI. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 23:07, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Page:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) 14:24, 27 May 2015
2. Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) 14:27, 27 May 2015
3. Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) 18:37, 27 May 2015
4. Abyan campaign (March–April 2015) 18:39, 27 May 2015

Comments:

The problem here is the editor is misrepresenting what the sources are saying. His combined death total of two sources was initially incorrect. He wrote 64 killed per pro-Hadi sources. The two sources indeed talk about 35 dead and 29 dead respectively, however, the first figure (35) is for dead on BOTH sides, not just for the Houthis. As for the second figure (29) it is claimed by officials...at no point is it stated they are pro-Hadi officials. I tried first talking to him over the course of the next two days but he has been uncompromising and has continued reinserting the figures are both claimed by pro-Hadi officials when in fact the 1st source for the Houthi dead is a pro-Houthi soldier and the 2nd source for the Houthi dead are only named as officials and (like I said) are at no point stated they are pro-Hadi. In addition, not in the spirit of Assuming good faith and sticking to WP: Civil, has accused me of bias and many other things. As seen from his talk page, he made hostile un-constructive accusations at other editors as well in the past. I myself have conducted at least 2 reverts per day during this edit war and have reached a point that I have stopped and am asking for admin intervention on this point. EkoGraf (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: This seems to be a content dispute. @

talk

) 22:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Both warned. If either party continues to revert, they may be blocked without further notice. The tone used by Mr.User200 at
  User:Beeblebrox and User:Drmies. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 13:32, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Page: UK Independence Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Berox7 (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]
5. [30]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]

Comments:
Pretty obvious case of a party supporter who is simply not listening. In addition to the talk page section, several of the issues were discussed on the talk page in earlier sections ----Snowded ^TALK 07:09, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I fully endorse Snowded's actions here. Berox7 has been extremely disruptive and rude to fellow editors, all the while completely ignoring Wikipedia policy on a range of issues. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:18, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [33] Note: same is part of previous reverting/warring.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [34]
2. [35], [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]

Finally self reverting:

1. (Reverted back to old numbers and old source for now.)

Then immediately revering back, claiming only to remove a source:

1. (Don't know why this source is here. Fixed source.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Link to notice suggesting self revert on user's talk & Discussion on my talk making excuses.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: They started a thread at article talk after the fact and before self reverting.

Comments:
To me it looks like gaming the system since they didn't simply revert when provided with the opportunity but rather spend time (about 1/2h) making excuses and claiming not to know/be able to revert like a new user would which they are not, making it hard to believe the re-revert was just an honest mistake. Good faith is running thin considering their responses and long term warring for their prefered version on Venezuela related articles.

I did not try to break the rule and may have gotten accidentally carried away with the reversions while trying to explain my edits. I know you don't like me from your previous edits TMCk and you also told me it does not matter how I revert back (which I attempted to do) so I would not have to worry about the 3RR. You can say that I have excuses but when I have three different users reverting my work continuously it becomes overwhelming and I'm more prone to make mistakes trying to explain things to three different people at once. I apologize if it seemed like I was attempting to edit war.--ZiaLater (talk) 06:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, you now allege I hold a personal grudge against you despite giving you the opportunity to self revert and not filing here until you re-reverted your self revert which still stands as of now. I pointed out that fact here and on your talk page.

talk

) 15:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Page: South Beach Diet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There is currently a disagreement on the above page which is close to degenerating into a full edit war. I feel that the other editor involved, user:Jytdog is unequivocally violating MEDRS, and is violating NPOV, although that is not blatantly obvious at a glance, as the MEDRS is. Anmccaff (talk) 19:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

First of all, nobody has broken 3RR so this is a non-actionable filing.

Background: A paid editor had been pushing to not describe SBD as a "fad diet" for a long time with no consensus, and had finally pretty much given up. Enter Anmccalff in Mid-March with this dif, picking up that argument where the paid editor left off, and also got no consensus. Our last exchange was Apr 30 here, where I suggested he implement some DR process.

Today Anmmccalff:

up and just deleted the "fad diet" language.

I reverted, saying please don't edit war and again pointed to DR

BRD would suggest, instead, that you discuss, and justify, your using cites which violate MEDRS, I would have thought.Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Anmmcalff again deleted

I again reverted, and promised an edit war warning,

which I gave them, here

ball remains in their court to initiate DR for these edits that no one else supports. Jytdog (talk) 19:33, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

There is no "no one else," merely him at the moment...flagrantly violating a standard he is very quick to uphold in other circumstances.Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

PS:Jytdog is a bit touchy about any edit of his work, so could someone (else) please correct the mispellings above?Anmccaff (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

you really need to read

WP:TPG - i am not freaky at all, in not taking well to other people editing my comments. and clearly i do not agree with your interpretation of MEDRS. (and btw, that i am the last one with patience to continue talking with you, doesn't mean that anybody agrees with you) in any case, this is not a matter for 3RR unless anmccaff continues to edit war instead of using DR. i won't be responding further unless that happens and i need to continue this. Jytdog (talk

) 20:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Comment: There are no more than two reverts by each party, and they took place on 27 May. There isn't yet a clear report of long-term edit warring. Unless more data are provided, this will most likely close as No violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There wasn't a 3RR, and if there is a long-term edit war, the case has not yet been made clearly. Please discuss elsewhere whether
  WP:MEDRS justifies calling South Beach a fad diet. Somehow it's hard to imagine randomized controlled trials deciding whether a certain diet is a fad. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 17:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Page: Luri language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page:

Two of us have been warning this user against edit-warring, but he keeps reverting to his edits, without even correcting errors that have been pointed out to him. While the gibberish he keeps adding can be cleaned up, it would be nice if he would wait for discussion. I don't care about him being blocked, I just would like him to think before he edits. — kwami (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

No violation – See below. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

We're supposed to be able to come here for edit-warring even if 3RR was not violated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwamikagami (talk • contribs) 17:24, 30 May 2015‎ (UTC)

Yes, but this was more of a skirmish than a war when reported, and neither of you had commented on Talk pages about it. It would probably be a good idea to start conversations about the disputes on the Talk page of the associated articles. However, I personally suggest that the onus should primarily be on Mjbmr for that, since they seem to be the one who wants to change the article content (or, in the case of Southern Luri language, convert the redirect into an article). —BarrelProof (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Northern Luri language, Bakhtiari dialect, it should be discussed first to make any changes to these articles. Mjbmr (talk

) 18:54, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest to start a discussion at Talk:Southern Luri language about your desire to turn that redirect into an article. It was previously always a redirect (for five years) until you converted it into an article a couple of weeks ago. Kwami disagreed with that action and reverted it. Now you should start a discussion to try to reach a consensus. This is not really the right place for the content discussion. The situation at Northern Luri language seems very similar. —BarrelProof (talk) 19:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I believe this new edit of Southern Luri language by

Check the history,

WP:3RR first, I asked him on my second revert to discuss this, but he undid my edit for the third time. Mjbmr (talk

) 19:32, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

No. I only see three reverts by Kwami within any 24 hour period. I see four by you. Also, you're the one who wants to change the long-stable redirect into an article, so you should be the one who starts a discussion at Talk:Southern Luri language about it, in an effort to establish a consensus, and you still haven't done that. Even if you think I'm wrong as a matter of principle and that Kwami should be the one to start the discussion there, you should be gracious and do it as a gesture of goodwill. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I see that Kwami has started a discussion about this matter at Talk:Luri language. That is probably a good place to hold the discussion – perhaps better than at Talk:Southern Luri language, since more people probably have Luri language on their watchlists than the redirect. Very few people probably watch old redirects. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I asked Mjbmr to read BOLD. That would solve the problem, if he followed it. — kwami (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: Mjbmr has placed a {{retired}} template on their user page, and has not edited since doing that. —BarrelProof (talk) 03:00, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Not sure how you can mark this as "No violation". There is clearly a violation asserted above (in boldface), although it did occur after the discussion here had already started. —BarrelProof (talk) 22:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Page: 2015 Baltimore Orioles season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdavi333 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've tried to warn

1. I remove it, They re-add it
2. I remove it again, They re-add it again
3. Explain why it can be used on the team article, but not the individual season articles, Added back again

I explained the difference between copyright and trademark on my talk page here in our conversation (for example, the Phillies "P" logo, which is used on the 2015 Philadelphia Phillies season page, since it is too simple to be copyrighted). However, the Baltimore logo does fall under this "too simple" category, and cannot be used on the 2015 Baltimore Orioles season page. In addition to this, they seem to be going around to all the other 2015 MLB season pages, and adding non-free logos to each season article (for example, 2015 Mariners, 2015 Rays, 2015 Blue Jays, and others...), so they can say "But all the other team pages have logos on them". Canuck^{89 (converse with me)} 00:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Page: Sophia Abrahão (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 177.177.178.57 (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]

Comments:

This IP editor continued an edit-war after being warned. More than one person has reverted him, so that's edit warring against consensus SpeedDemon520 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• @SpeedDemon520: I spoke to the editor at my talk page. I think the editor was getting frustrated, leading to the edit-warring (of which the editor is undoubtedly guilty). However, after helping the editor, I'm hopeful things have been sorted out. Perhaps we could wait a bit before taking any action to see if the editor has changed their tune? --Non-Dropframe _talk 23:52, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

I've got no problem with that. SpeedDemon520 (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. It seems that the IP may have added some material by mistake that they would prefer to have kept in a sandbox. If so then this removal is just a sensible precaution to be sure that the content is correct. There is a longer article about this singer on the Portuguese Wikipedia. See pt:Sophia Abrahão, which editors could study using Google Translator at least to see if the assertions are similar. EdJohnston (talk) 02:24, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

User talk:170.93.140.42 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:27, 29 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Introducing factual errors on
   TW
   )"
2. 15:25, 29 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on
   TW
   )"
3. 15:26, 29 May 2015 (UTC) "/* May 2015 */"
4. 03:10, 30 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Kept on adding stats on tha page without reference. Vin09 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected
  Andhra Pradesh capital city one month due to repeated unsourced changes by IP. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 02:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Cytherea (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rebecca1990 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff of move

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [42]
2. [43]
3. [44]
4. [45]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rebecca1990#Edit_warring - They've actually warned each other!

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cytherea_(actress)#Requested_move_27_April_2015

Comments:

I'm filing two cases. One for Rebecca1990 and one for User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (It's an edit war and there are two combatants but this page seems more geared towards 3RR rather than edit wars) They both know they're warring as is evidenced by HW's warning to Rebecca to stop edit warring. The war has spilled over to other articles. Most of this is centered on if pornographic actors should have "(actor/actress)" or "(pornographic actor/actress)" as a disambiguator. Though they've carried the argument on with other things which can be seen in their contributions.

Another topic of theirs can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#CNBC's Dirty Dozen list. They've entered into a discussion but that hasn't stopped them from edit warring over that either. diff 1 of many, diff 2 of many.

For evidence of other move warring see:

• Linda Wong (actress)
• Samantha Fox (actress)
• Chris Steele (actor)

Thank you for your time. Dismas|^(talk) 03:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [46]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [47]
2. [48]
3. [49]
4. [50]
5. [51]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [52]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Maddie Ziegler#Infobox

Comments:
An ongoing discussion is being ignored, and it is possible that the red mist has come down on these FIVE reverts, two of which have been after warnings have been left. - SchroCat (talk) 20:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I've already warned the editor, and I'll keep an eye on the page. Given that the article had an infobox since its creation, an RfC is probably the best way forward. Sarah (SV) ^(talk) 00:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree, and was about to do the same. I note also thst the final revert came only 3 minutes after the formal warning, which might not have been seen by the editor. DES ^(talk) 02:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

How pointless. They were warned twice during their edit warring and they had ample opportunity to view those warnings, so it's laughable to leave a third (and weakly worded) "warning". So much for having a bright line rule if we don't actually bother to enforce it. - SchroCat (talk) 04:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

Free web hosting service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [53]
2. [54] - edit summary accuses people of sockpuppetry
3. [55]
4. [56]
5. 10:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665000136 by Joseph2302 (talk) Disallowing constructive citation"
6. 10:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664979123 by Bonadea (talk) Not allowing constructive citations on false grounds. Please check talk with Bonadea. Overexercising power."
7. 21:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664923594 by NeilN (talk) Citation is needed. What's wrong with Neil."
8. 21:39, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664919949 by NeilN (talk) Unnecessary"
9. 21:11, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 664827889 by Bonadea (talk) Note: Unnecessary revert made (Little Extended knowledge is better than no knowledge))"
10. 06:24, 31 May 2015 (UTC) "Content added, few language structure corrected and citation provided."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* June 2015 */ reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition of spam link to http://freedomainer.com/hosting/ , despite the fact that myself, @Bonadea: and @NeilN: have reverted them, and explained that it's a poor quality source. Their talkpage suggests unwillingness to cooperate with any other users, as their repsonses are always "You're wrong" or "You're overexercising your power". Joseph2302 (talk) 10:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

They have also indicated they will not stop, despite 3 users explaining why the source is no good. On their talkpage, they wrote "And you talked about reverting it 3 times, I will do it as long as I feel I am right in my stand-view, and as long as you guys revert it back (I will stop if you guys stop). You can file the report if you want but I too have freedom of speech & opinion and to make contribution as long as I feel its constructive." Wikipedia needs good editing and collaboration, not poor sourcing and a righteous attitude. Joseph2302 (talk)@

Also edit warring at

I've blocked this user indefinitely as they are clearly

not here to contribute to an encyclopedia. Graham87

14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Koreans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vietg12 (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. [58]
2. [59]
3. [60]
4. [61]
5. [62]
6. [63]
7. [64]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. [65]
2. [66]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [67]

Comments:
I warned the user twice, to no avail. They make no sign they are going to stop edit-warring. Ogress _smash! 06:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

WP:3O, got an answer, then ignored it and continued to revert. EdJohnston (talk

) 16:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Ghouta chemical attack (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Erlbaeko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [68]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [69]
2. [70]
3. [71]
4. [72]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Comments: Pretty clear violation of 1RR on an article to which general sanctions apply on two consecutive days. Complicating matters somewhat is that one of the parties in this dispute appears to be a blocked editor "contributing" as an IP, although that is unconfirmed (and Erlbaeko has reverted other editors, myself included, as well during this whole dustup). This might be the wrong place to note it, but I do feel this article requires some attention from administrators, as this kind of unproductive editing has not been uncommon in the page's history. -Kudzu1 (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Admin EdJohnston has been addressing this issue here. -Darouet (talk) 18:14, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Imo, it is not a violation of the 1RR-restriction, nor is it a violation of usual 3RR-restriction.

1. Revision as of 12:21, 23 May 2015, is an attempt to find a third version. It is also a revert of this IP-edit.
2. Revision as of 20:05, 24 May 2015, is a revert of this IP-edit.
3. Revision as of 18:07, 25 May 2015, is a revert of this IP-edit.
4. Revision as of 09:36, 26 May 2015, is a revert of this edit.

Yes, 2 reverts is made whithin a 24 hour period, but at least one of them are IP-edits. As EdJohnston have explained, reverts of IP editors doesn't count according to the 1RR-restriction on Syrian Civil War related pages, but are subject to usual rules on edit warring. Ref. General sanctions - Remedies. Erlbaeko (talk) 00:04, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Update: I like this to be formally closed. Thank you. Erlbaeko (talk) 15:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Per the reasoning at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive173#Erlbaeko it appears that Erlbaeko did not violate the 1RR rule. EdJohnston (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Is there a difference between No violation and No action? If not, I like it to be closed as No violation. If it is, what is the violation? Also. There is a question in that arbitration requests (by

WP:NOCON. Instead I believe he should have reverted to previous consensus himself or started a discussion on the talk page, instead of this revert diff. Fyi, there is also a discussion about this incident on the talk page of the article here: Talk:Ghouta chemical attack#Edit warring on a 1RR restricted article

.

P.S. I notised that you see Kudzu1 as someone to ask for advice. Ref. diff. Nothing wrong with that, but if you feel that you is to close to him to judge his behaviour you may leave this to somebody else. Erlbaeko (talk) 19:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Erlbaeko, this report closed with no action against you. It's not clear how or why you would want to appeal it. 'No action' and 'No violation' are very similar results. If you aren't happy with my decision, you can appeal it to

WP:ANI. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:38, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

EdJohnston. If it is no violation, I like it to be closed as 'No violation'. I also like an answer to my questions above. Erlbaeko (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

Peter Hitchens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC) to 13:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 13:09, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 12:42, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 12:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
4. Consecutive edits made from 08:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC) to 08:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 08:48, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""
   2. 08:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Peter Hitchens */ new section"
2. 12:50, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Peter Hitchens */ reply"
3. 13:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Peter Hitchens */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:39, 1 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Badly need help reinstating legitimate picture= */ reply"

Comments:

This user is trying to contest a picture deletion by adding complaints to the main article, despite multiple warnings not to do so. I've found who deleted it for them, so that they can discuss the issue, however they are refusing to talk to the deletor, instead demanding immediate reinstation of the image [75] that was deleted. Ignored warnings about vandalising the article by adding their pleas for help/frustrations about it being deleted. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

This is SO unhelpful and also severely inaccurate. the person who deleted the picture says on his talk page that he has left Wikipedia, so I am not 'refusing to talk to him'. I am simply unable to do so (not that he gives the impression of being anxious to help, or explain himself. he could have done that before deleting the picture which a) was placed therewith the personal written permission of the photographer and b) was properly submitted to wikimedia commons, hence the designation [76] which I could only have obtained from them. ) . Nor am I 'demanding' instant reinstatement. This is plain untrue. I am asking for someone with more web skills than I possess to help me reinstate the picture. the person who removed the picture also deleted the image, so I will have to trudge all the way through the process again, which i believe I had done correctly. I do not wish to do this unless I have advice on where, if at all, I went wrong. I have very limited web skills,. It took me a great deal of trouble to get this picture posted in the first place, and I believe I did it entirely within the rules and in good faith. Yet it was arbitrarily removed *and* needlessly deleted (so making reinstatement twice as hard) , without so much as an attempt to contact me. I am asking for help, and all I get is rigid, inflexible bureaucracy. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Here is the plea for help which I posted and which the above contributor deleted. : A CRY FOR HELP. HELP! I AM SEEKING A WIKIPEDIA EDITOR PREPARED TO HELP REINSTATE A PHOTOGRAPH, LEGITIMATELY UPLOADED PROPERLY REGISTERED AT WIKIMEDIA THE USE OF WHICH HAD BEEN APPROVED BY THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN PERSON, WHICH WAS POINTLESSLY AND OFFICIOUSLY DELETED FROM THIS PAGE. DETAILS ON TALK PAGE. PLEASE DO NOT DELETE THIS APPEAL UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO HELP. I AM SURE THERE ARE WIKIPEDIA EDITORS WHO SEE IT AS THEIR DUTY TO HELP RATHER THAN JUST INTERFERE. IF YOU ARE NOT ONE OF THEM, PLEASE JUST LEAVE THIS HERE UNTIL SUCH A HELPFUL PERSON COMES ALONG. IT WON'T BE LONG, THEN THEY CAN DELETE IT AND WE CAN REINSTATE THE PICTURE.

Note the absence of any 'demand' for 'instant reinstatement'

PH signed in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 14:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

There is nowhere that says they have left Wikipedia, see their commons page and their English Wiki page. Also, the issue I'm actually having is that you're vandalising the main article repeatedly to complain about it being deleted, despite the fact you've been warned not to. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:18, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Wrong yet again. The user concerned is 'Magog the Ogre'. If you visit his page you will find he has indeed left. I am trying to get help from someone who understands this needlessly complex system. I have a perfectly legitimate photograph which would add to the entry. I have the photographer's permission to use it. I have put it through wikimedia's own procedures, hence the file name (see above) . I have no idea how I could have been more scrupulous or careful. I just want some HELP! Please, someone. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 14:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Nope, according to [77], it was deleted by Didym. Also, stop posting your replies to my talkpage, I've already banned you from using my talkpage for using it as a vehicle to complain about me/Wikipedia image policy. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Warned User:Clockback. I've posted at commons:User talk:Didym to see if he has advice about the next step in restoring the image. Clockback is confirmed by OTRS to be the article subject, Peter Hitchens. But if he does revert the article again he may be blocked. There is also an available image at File:Peterhitchens.jpg and I wonder why we couldn't use that one until the deletion issue with the other one is resolved. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for nothing, bureaucrats. I think you will find that the former picture has real copyright problems, since it was taken by a Mail on Sunday staff photographer and used for years without any permission and in violation of copyright, which is one of the many reasons I took the opportunity to replace it with a picture that had the photographer's direct personal permission, no copyright probs and having been put properky through the wikimedia process.How odd that the previous one, which should have been removed years ago, officious interference. In any case it's ancient and out of date.Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback Clockback (talk) 21:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: March Against Monsanto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GMORocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: here

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:March_Against_Monsanto#Background discussion

Comments:
New user. First edit was aggressive changes (+ 2,239) to a controversial article, changing many things at once. Some of it OK per policy and guidelines, much of it not OK. Doesn't understand that you don't make sweeping changes to a controversial article all at once, and apparently doesn't understand content policies and guidelines. Please protect the article for a few days to drive discussion, and warn the user to slow down, make changes slowly, and discuss things. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 14:52, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

we also have

WP:COPYVIO as well from here per this comment

,.

all copyright violation has been fixed as the sentences have been re-worded. GMORocks (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

after being reverted by a third party, GMORocks

• edit wars again
• and again (that is now 6 RR) :: ::: And no. The content about the IARC report on glyphosate is a valid ref that we worked into the glyphosate article back when it came out. Your personal attack is another newbie mistake. You are heading for a block instead of a warning. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

GMORocks has continued edit warring even as this ANEW discussion has been taking place. Addtional edit warring diffs below:

1. [78]
2. [79]

The editor has not engaged at Talk and is apparently unwilling to attempt to understand or engage in the WP:BRD process. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:21, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Considering the user continued to edit war after commenting here, there wasn't much choice but for a short block. SmartSE (talk) 15:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Jytdog

I wish to report that Jytdog has been reverting my edits with incorrect reasons from the 1st edit onwards.

• diff - reason : "remove unsourced content; changes to well sourced content", invalid reason since inline citations with every line
• diff - reason : "please do not edit war, but discuss on Talk per WP:BRD - please make changes in smaller bites, too. Thanks" - demonstrates WP:OWN and no errors mentioned
• diff - reason : "Please stop edit warring. please discuss on Talk. Thanks", again, demonstrates WP:OWN and no errors mentioned even on talk page

User:Jytdog has been showing significant bias against the content I have added in, specifically the section mentioning the recent IARC classifying glyphosate as "probably carcinogenic". Every statement I added has reliable references and inline citations (NYT and Huffington Post). GMORocks (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

right, i didn't violate 3RR. You did. Above I asked for page protection and a warning but due to your violation of our content policies and your aggression I am asking for a block now. Jytdog (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Capitalismojo has also been showing bias against my additions with the statement "This vast change is not an improvement".^[1] He/she has been reverting my edits citing copyright violations (which there are none) and "bold" (which it is not) and most recently "vast changes".

I am indeed biased against edit warring, so should all wikipedians. Capitalismojo (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Follow up: Now despite knowing better,
  talk
  ) 20:43, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

thanks for pointing that out. self-reverted, with apologies. perhaps you will remove the COPYVIO, TMCK. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't ask if you have bad faith and a deadline in mind. I do have other things to do, too, yah know?! And

talk

) 23:05, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

don't know what your writing even means, but by the dif i see that i edit-conflict erased a comment from you. fixed that, my apologies. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Art history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.88.86.113 (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. [80]
2. [81]
3. [82]
4. [83]

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

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

Comments: This user has been warned about his disruptive editing.

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Materialscientist (talk) 03:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Quenelle (gesture) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blaue Max (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=664960648

Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665001759
2. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665043574
3. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665045337
4. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665047052
5. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665053852
6. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665054583
7. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665055360
8. [diff]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quenelle_(gesture)&diff=665056396&oldid=665055708

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaue_Max Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Blaue_Max Comments:
there is also on his page, a link to a "neo nazi" blog.

User:Zeevjabotinski User:Jetur and User:Obvie [85] are obviously sockpuppets who are trying to push Original research. They were created today, they have full knowledge of Wikipedia policies and push the same POV... Blaue Max (talk) 20:03, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: It is surprising that an account less than 24 hours old (Zeevjabotinski) knows how to file at 3RR and has nice userboxes on their user page. Some admins would do a duck block of all three accounts. Also, Zeev names himself after a Jewish hero while writing about a salute that is said to be antisemitic. EdJohnston (talk) 23:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked + the socks/meats, since it's clear that the nominated editor (only blocked 24 hours; compared to inciting account 72 + socks indef) has recently been warned about edit warring and was also technically edit warring here before this descended into a full-on sockfest. --slakr^\ talk / 03:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: Cytherea (actress) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Rebecca1990#Edit_warring - They've actually warned each other!

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cytherea_(actress)#Requested_move_27_April_2015

Comments:

I'm filing two cases. One for User:Rebecca1990 and one for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. (It's an edit war and there are two combatants but this page seems more geared towards 3RR rather than edit wars) They both know they're warring as is evidenced by HW's warning to Rebecca to stop edit warring. The war has spilled over to other articles. Most of this is centered on if pornographic actors should have "(actor/actress)" or "(pornographic actor/actress)" as a disambiguator. Though they've carried the argument on with other things which can be seen in their contributions.

Another topic of theirs can be seen at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography#CNBC's Dirty Dozen list. They've entered into a discussion but that hasn't stopped them from edit warring over that either. diff 1 of many, diff 2 of many.

For evidence of other move warring see:

• Linda Wong (actress)
• Samantha Fox (actress)
• Chris Steele (actor)

Thank you for your time. Dismas|^(talk) 03:57, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not going to be available to repond properly until tonight. For the record, I'll note that this began because "Rebecca" began closing contentious move discussions she initiated and implementing her desired outcome, which is plainly and grossly inappropriate. The other matters involve rather straightforward applications of BLP policy, where "Rebecca" refuses to abide by basic sourcing requirements. Note also, on Rebecca's talk page, that she was previously cautioned by another admin regarding her behavior about moves, and that she previously edit warred to make
  Brandon Lee (actor) the title of a porn actor bio rather than pointing to the far better known mainstream actor. "Rebecca1990" is an SPA, repeatedly described as a likely paid editot by several long-term contributors, whose behavior in other disputes was previously described by admins as "appalling" bad faith. I see a similar lack of good faith here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk
  ) 12:16, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Are you talking about a lack of good faith in me? Dismas|^(talk) 19:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Page

Western Illinois University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Pfk102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. [91]
2. [92]
3. [93]
4. 20:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665224952 by Joseph2302 (talk) Sourced by western Courier"
5. 20:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665224556 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
6. 20:05, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 665224018 by Drmies (talk)"
7. Consecutive edits made from 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC) to 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:38, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* IFC Fraternities */"
   2. 19:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* IFC Fraternities */"
   3. 19:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 631841702 by Drmies (talk)"
   4. 19:43, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 631841599 by Drmies (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:08, 2 June 2015 (UTC) "/* Western Illinois University */ reply"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User previous blocked for edit warring. They are repeatedly adding poorly sourced, promotional content, and show no evidence of wanting to collaborate, see [94], where they called be an imbecile. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

User is also claiming employment by the university and asserting

WP:NOTHERE. EdJohnston (talk

) 20:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Page:

Previous version reverted to: [95]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [96]
2. [97]
3. [98]
4. [99]
5. [100]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

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

Comments:
The material was inserted by an IP editor in a similar range in these edits: [102][103][104]. The material was then removed by another user, O mnp11, because of questionable reliability. It was re-instated by 37.231.165.51 multiple times with no attempt by the editor to lift their burden to demonstrate the reliability of the material. The user is also keeps posting a message to my user talk page as can be seen from their contribs.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Sign your comment in my talk page. Second, go to Wiki:RSN if you're questioning reliability. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The info you keep removing was in the article for many days. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 19:56, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Go to Wiki:RSN yourself, or even better, use the talk page like everybody else.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:54, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

And why aren't you using the talk page? You're the one objecting to its reliability, you should be the one going to Wiki:RSN. The admins told you that the last time. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The material became part of the article. It was there for almost a month. It was removed today and the edit was reverted. So the person who made the most recent change to the article should explain why he wants to make the change in the talk page. I'm reverting the article to how it was before. Admins told you on another occasion that if you object to the reliability of something that's already in the article (not recently added), you should be taking it to Wiki:RSN. 37.231.165.51 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

What would you know about what "admins told me on another occasion"? Are you a sockpuppet? When the material was added is completely irrelevant. The rules are clear: the burden is on you to demonstrate the reliability of the challenged material.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus to allow the use of Yemeni state media on this article. -Kudzu1 (talk) 20:12, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

The editor has now reverted both O mnp11[105], myself[106], and Kudzu1[107].--Anders Feder (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected two months. There were five reverts by the IP named in this report, whose first edit was on June 2, and lots of edits by IPs who aren't participating on talk. If there are questions about usability of sources it looks better if those interested will make a request at
  WP:RSN. EdJohnston (talk
  ) 22:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Page: