Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive293

Page

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:58, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Statement by MarkBernstein */ Redact per BLP as no source supports this claim and it lends undue credence to the harmful characterization of an identifiable living person's actions"
2. 01:12, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679022096 by NE Ent (talk) That source does not support the specific claims of expertise made here so per BLP it is still an unsourced claim"
3. 01:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679023110 by Dumuzid (talk) As explained, the BLP violation arises from the unsourced claim of expertise"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

See block log for prior violations, and note Wikipedia:Edit_warring#What_to_do_if_you_see_edit-warring_behavior clearly states A warning is not required, but if the user appears unaware that edit warring is prohibited, ; given the user's prior blocks they should be aware of the policy.

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Not an article, and talk page is redirected per arbcom motion. Provided reference describing named person as "expert" in edit summary [1]

Comments:

NE Ent 01:30, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My reasoning here is simple enough. Saying "X person is an expert on this and says [negative claim] about Y person" where no source states X person is an expert on the matter constitutes an unsourced negative claim about a living person and thus can be removed on sight as it lends undue credibility to a claim that would otherwise be a mere personal opinion. The mentioned source only claims expertise in other areas.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:ARBGG

:

The 'usual exceptions' is a link to

WP:ARBGG restriction. EdJohnston (talk

) 02:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Seems like edit warring and a t-ban violation...

re

}} 03:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

You are, I think, missing the implications. When you say "X is an expert on this matter and has stated Y engaged in plagiarism" the obvious implication is that X is an expert on plagiarism and used that expertise to determine Y is guilty of that very serious offense. To say an expert has deemed a person guilty of plagiarism would undeniably be libelous if one is aware the person has no expertise on the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

My apologies if I am intruding where I should not be, but I just wanted to quickly convey my thoughts. To The Devil's Advocate--this all seems terribly backwards to me. If we accept that widgeting is a heinous accusation, then "I am an expert in widgeting, and Dumuzid widgets" is certainly libelous, but so is "I like bananas and Dumuzid widgets." Your 'BLP' fixes left the sting of the accusation in place. That being said, I think it would be good form for you to avoid borderline cases such as this. But for what it's worth, I think this merits no more than a warning. Thanks all. Dumuzid (talk) 03:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Except, that isn't an apt comparison. What we have is an accusation from a person mentioned in a reliable source. Absent the part I removed, it is simply one person accusing another person of something heinous. There is no reason to take the accusation seriously as anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Claiming this accuser is an expert on the matter gives the accusation a false appearance of truth.-The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:47, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

To my mind "one person accusing another of something heinous" is precisely the sort of issue that has BLP implications. But I might well be wrong. Dumuzid (talk) 03:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree both comments have BLP implications, but since the accusation is mentioned in a reliable source and was phrased as an accusation it would not qualify on its own as libelous, unsourced, or poorly sourced, material. To claim the person making the accusation is an expert on the matter, when that is not contained in any reliable source, would qualify since it falsely presents the harmful accusation as more credible. What I removed was only that which could not be backed by a reliable source.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I see your point, and all things being equal, I would defend you -- but all things are not equal. Given your history here, and the fact that this was in a statement by someone against whom sanctions are being sought, I would certainly say that discretion is the better part of valor. To my mind, there are far worse problems to be solved on Wikipedia that involve neither the possibility, nor even the appearance, of impropriety on your part. Having said that, it's up to each of us to chart our own course. Thanks. Dumuzid (talk) 04:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Whoa whoa whoa - Dumuzid hold on now. Just last week you talked about your lack of experience here. What would an inexperienced editor know about TDA's "history" hmm? 146.185.25.138 (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, I am closing in on half a year! And I do recall seeing The Devil's Advocate before. But here when I mentioned 'history,' I meant it as a tactful way to refer to the restrictions noted above. Dumuzid (talk) 04:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Specific legal ramifications in an ongoing proceeding exist for the living person accused and as such my conscience in defending this person from wrongful accusation is clear. Other editors topic-banned following the ArbCom case have been allowed even greater leeway on BLP than I am asking for as what I removed is not backed by any source, even a contentious one. The only reason I have not reverted this restoration as well is because an admin is apparently not understanding why it is an issue despite my explanation. Hopefully, should he recognize it is an issue he will do the right thing and revert that editor himself.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I've blocked TDA for 2 weeks for this clear case of a breach of topic ban, combined with the edit-warring, outrageously lame misapplication of BLP and wikilawyering in defending it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't quite think this is "lame" application of BLP. To remove names, the situation is thus. We have reliable sourcing that X says Y is Z. We say "The expert X says Y is Z". We have no clear sourcing saying X is an Expert in Z. Therefore we are saying An Expert in Z is saying that Y is Z without having a source that says this. This is a BLP Violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 13:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

FP's closure looks correct to me. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Agree. While the subjective label of "expert" might be somewhat generous or debatable, it's certainly not an unreasonable or controversial claim to the degree that it constitutes a BLP vio and needs an emergency ban-violating redaction. Swarm ♠ 05:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Chris Bell (politician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
2. 17:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
3. 18:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
4. 05:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Mr. Eduardo.g.harvard feels personally that truck-accident litigation "has a negative connotation." Mr. Bell also feels that Mr. Bell's profession (that is, how Mr. Bell makes a living) should not be listed at the opening of his Wikipedia article. How do Eduardo.g.harvard's feelings enter into a Wikipedia article?

In any event, Mr. Eduardo.g.harvard's response does not any answer any questions I have posed: (1) Is the entry accurate, or inaccurate? (2) Does it not quote Mr. Bell's own website? (3) Is the following description of Mr. Bell's legal specialty — that he is "an 18 wheeler lawyer" — not the one given by Mr. Bell himself? NicholasNotabene (talk) 05:55, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

His description includes many facets of law that he practices (including truck accidents). It's disingenuous to focus on the type of litigation that has a negative connotation. That lends undue weight to one issue. What's more, this info belongs under "Political Career" rather than →top. I'll continue fixing this issue as NicholasNotabene continues defaming this page.

1. It's inaccurate insofar as it promotes an unbalanced view of Mr. Bell's legal career- lending undue weight to one very specified practice.

2. I'm adding the FULL quote from his website- not a cherry picked section.

3. Though he mentions being an 18-wheeler lawyer, he also mentions a long list of other types of litigation. From the website NicholasNotabene cites "Chris Bell has represented clients in Texas on cases including truck accident law, personal injury, and commercial litigation." Eduardo.g.harvard (talk) 13:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments

NicholasNotabene continues to accuse me of being involved with Bell's campaign (which is inaccurate) and disregards the context of the material he cites in the article. Additionally, he has clearly demonstrated disregard for the 3rr. Eduardo.g.harvard (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• Note NicholasNotabene has been blocked by Xymmax and Eduardo.g.harvard issued a 3rr warning. However, I do not believe this issue has been resolved. -- Orduin ^Discuss 00:58, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Note There is an open DRN thread found
  here. -- Orduin ^Discuss
  01:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. I see no reason for one party to be blocked and not the other. Blocking Eduardo for 24 as well. Swarm ♠ 08:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Boy band (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* 2000s: Backstreet Boys, Westlife, TVXQ!, Jonas Brothers and F4 */"
2. 14:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* 2000s: Backstreet Boys, Westlife, TVXQ!, Jonas Brothers and F4 */"
3. 14:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* 2000s: Backstreet Boys, Westlife, Jonas Brothers and F4 */"
4. 16:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* 2000s: Backstreet Boys, Westlife, Jonas Brothers and F4 */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 16:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC) ""

Comments:

Editor refused to have a civil discussion and resorted to name calling. The discussion took place in my talk page which I moved to the article's talk page.

I was going to say that MugenDarkness is technically only at three reverts (as the first edit of the day wasn't a revert) and not past it, but then I saw this obviously logged out revert. That, the personal attacks, and their attempted deletion of this thread seem to warrant a block IMO. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, and his complete refusal to have a discussion in a civil manner is frankly frustrating. His arguments don't even make sense.--

Krystaleen

16:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

And the edit war continues. He just reverted my edits again [2] --

Krystaleen

07:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I was using a phone admin anf never intend to deleted that , instead i was trying to reported that user but it got all mess — Preceding unsigned comment added by MugenDarkness (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. NeilN ^{talk to me} 12:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Bogdan Bogdanović (basketball) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.225.150.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]

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

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

Comments: I have started a discussion with user on his TP - still no reply. In my opinion, unwilling to participate. If not enough for block, please put this page in your watchlist.--AirWolf ^talk 17:39, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Joint Matriculation Board (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.77.136.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [8]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [9]
2. [10]
3. [11]
4. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14] and [15]

Comments:

This user keeps on taking the dates out of the Joint Matriculation Board article. He/she has now broken the 3RR in just over an hour.

This user appears to post from many different IP addresses, including User:83.77.136.150, User:46.127.136.172 and User:92.23.28.246. The user seems to be systematically taking the dates out of many articles about qualifications (example, example, example). Often, these removals are 'buried' within other edits to the article, though sometimes they occur on their own. They are never referred to in the edit summaries, which are sometimes entirely misleading (or just rearrange the content being referred to as a front to remove the dates).

I have tried to discuss this with the user on the Joint Matriculation Board's talk page (links above) and draw the user's attention to this (here), but the user has ignored this.

Reverting back is made complicated by the other edits the user does at the same time as removing the dates. To rectify this, my most recent revert was for the dates (and their references) and nothing else (link). This was reverted nine minutes later.

This sort of tiresome behaviour is reminding me why I barely bother with Wikipedia. I only got dragged into this because I saw the Joint Matriculation Board article linked to elsewhere and wondered why all the dates had been taken out since I'd read it (I'd never edited the article until now).

Wumpus12 (talk) 00:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Note This user is also currently edit warring at
  General Certificate of Secondary Education. EdwardH (talk
  ) 14:49, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It's less edit warring than outright vandalism. This user is very persistant. I've given up on Leaving Certificate (Ireland) (for now), where the vandalism started Nov 2014. See also User:85.3.139.236. —WOFall (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Thanks for the support. I'm only just discovering the scale of this user's destruction. He/she has, over the last year (and under many different IP addresses), destroyed all the historical information in any articles about British and Irish qualifications and the exam boards that offer them. This deletion is usually buried within other edits (often of dubious quality). Dates are often replaced by phrases like 'recently' or not at (meaning changes happening decades apart appear to be co-current. The user ignores all attempts to discuss the issue, but often says 'you need to provide a solid, credible source for every single statement and number/figure you write'. Despite this, he/she often removes referenced dates (along with much other information). Right now, none of the pages for any of the qualifications have basic information like when they were introduced or the dates of major changes. Similarly, exam board articles have no foundation dates. I have tried to fix a few articles tonight (notably, Joint Matriculation Board, WJEC (exam board), NEAB, Midland Examining Group and Associated Examining Board). The dates I have added back in have been heavily (over)referenced. Time will tell whether they will be reverted right back anyway (that does appear to be this user's usual style). Is there anyway of flagging up this vandalism elsewhere? Right now, there's a whole area of Wikipedia that is of limited use. - Wumpus12 (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Help! The user has now created a brand new account, User:Supervisor635. His/her contributions show that he/she has just gone round and removed all the referenced dates I just added back into the articles (JMB, AEB, MEG, NEAB, SEB and WJEC). All edits have misleading summaries.

To add insult to injury, he/she then gave me a 'formal warning' for edit warring on my talk page. He/she accuses me of editing warring on NEAB – an article I have edited twice ever (with the second edit correcting typos in the first). Supervisor365 has done the same to another user because they restored the 3,000 characters Supervisor365 removed without justification.

I do not know what to do. How does one report a sockpuppet. More to the point, how does one stop this destructive and bullying behaviour, especially as it is coming from multiple IP addresses and accounts. I have replied on my own talk page, but do not feel able to do anything else.

I cannot put up with this. – Wumpus12 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

FYI - User:83.77.136.150 attempted to contact me yesterday after, I asked him not to remove the dates / alter (vandalise) the statistics I was trying to add to the GCSE, CSE and O-Level (UK) pages, he left an email address in this post on my talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:83.104.51.74&oldid=677977939 83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Page:

A couple more example reversions:

Page: Certificate of Secondary Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2015-08-26

1. [16]
2. [17]
3. [18]
4. [19]

Page: GCE Ordinary Level (United Kingdom) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2015-08-26

1. [20]
2. [21]
3. [22]
4. [23]
5. [24]

Also a fake formal warning, and another

Alternatively if a responsible adult has a few min's to spare, and fancies starting their own revertion war, could they please address any of the following issues with the qualification pages, I've left a partial lists on the relevant talk pages.

83.104.51.74 (talk) 23:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

He's back as : User:Supervisor635

Page: Certificate of Secondary Education (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) 2015-08-28

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]

83.104.51.74 (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

While this user has been temporarily blocked, I've got back restoring the dates that this user (under many different guises) had systematically removed from articles. The affected articles (that I've found – there's probably more) are:

• Assessment and Qualifications Alliance
• Associated Examining Board
• Cambridge International Examinations
• Council for the Curriculum, Examinations & Assessment
• Edexcel
• Examination boards in the United Kingdom
• GCE Advanced Level (United Kingdom)
• GCE Ordinary Level (United Kingdom)
• General Certificate of Education
• General Certificate of Secondary Education
• Higher School Certificate (United Kingdom)
• Joint Matriculation Board
• Leaving Certificate (Ireland)
• Midland Examining Group
• NEAB
• Oxford, Cambridge and RSA Examinations
• School Certificate (United Kingdom)
• Scottish Examination Board
• WJEC (exam board)

All this destruction has happened since last November. The articles – for now – all seem to have dates back in them (some added by me, others by different editors). – Wumpus12 (talk) 11:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

I've found more date-removal destruction at

UCLES. I've not attempted to fix any of this. It's too much -– Wumpus12 (talk

) 17:42, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

This user is still at large, now creating new accounts for every single edit to remove the dates from a selection of the articles linked to above. – Wumpus12 (talk) 21:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to User:Wumpus12 and the IP editor, and others, the subject of this complaint, via Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Supervisor635, is now under an indefinite block. I would go so far as to say that we can now continue trying to fix the articles in peace, while the subject can be blocked on sight for the foreseeable future. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Henry Danger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jmichelson27 (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 01:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) to 01:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
   1. 01:32, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Fixed content, added links"
   2. 01:34, 31 August 2015 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
2. 02:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
3. 21:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Season 1 (2014-15) */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This was previously reported here, but it appears it got archived when Bella and the Bulldogs was temporarily fully protected due to the same problem.

Both MPFitz1968 and myself have warned them, but they have again re-inserted their edits going against MOS after MPF encouraged them not to do so and bring it up on the talk page instead.

This user appears to have a known history for this after looking at their contributions/talk page/block log. Back in late June, they got engaged in a war on List of Victorious episodes in pretty much the same nature as now. At this point, it's just disruptive if they're not willing to communicate with other editors. Amaury (talk) 21:38, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Now IP 68.194.218.231 is making the same disruptive edits. I suspect it's a sock puppet, which I created a report about. Amaury (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours – by User:Berean Hunter for abusing multiple accounts. EdJohnston (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679276489 by Buaidh (talk) It is not appropriate to state formerly Mount McKinley, because it wasn't called Mount McKinley until 1917 after it was already being called Denali."
2. 21:30, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "Unanimously decided on talk page to be "Denali, officially known as Mount McKinley from 1917 until 2015" Please refer to there before changing again."
3. 21:49, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 679326895 by Fyunck(click) (talk) I did, search the talk page for formerly, you will find the discussion on it. Please go back to talk page to discuss it further."
4. 21:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "That is not true discontinue the edit war and take it to the talk page where we already have it. Thank you"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "that 4x revert is a 100% no-no. Two editors disagree with you. Bring it to talk please"
2. 22:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "3RR cannot be crossed."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 22:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "/* former known as, or also known as */"
2. 22:22, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "/* former known as, or also known as */"
3. 22:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) "/* former known as, or also known as */"

Comments:

This user is reverting two other editors, myself and Buaidh. He said I didn't take it to the Denali talk page... I did. He said some agreement was unanimous... I don't see it. I asked him to self revert and told him of the 3RR and he doesn't seem to care... Maybe there is something else Buaidh and i could have done to dissuade him from 4RR. I can certainly step back from editing the Denali article and keep it to the talk page, but he must be told to self-revert. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note: We both were guilty of the violation. I apologize for my part, as I didn't even realize I had gotten to the 3 part till I had already. As you will note in my comments, however, I tried to get both users to come to talk page to the discussion in progress regarding that very subject, and neither of them did until after both of us had broken the 3RR rule, which I was first to point out on the users talk page in order to get him to discuss it with me. Again, I apologize for my part in this, and understand if a temporary block needs to be put in place. Itanaman Dakar (talk) 00:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected — it looks like there's an ongoing attempt at
  WP:RFC. --slakr^\ talk
   / 02:00, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: The Scientist (song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Martinevans123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

I warned the user on their talk page. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Martinevans123&diff=679348522&oldid=679338380}

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32][33][34]

Comments:

The user is repeatedly removing my post of another version of the song, solely based on the user's opinion that the version is not notable. I've posted discussion in the talk page, but the user continues to revert without any discussion or response on the talk page. User reverted 3 times in a short period of time, and may have enlisted another user to revert a fourth time, also with not merit other than "not important"70.91.216.5 (talk) 01:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

You're in a content dispute. With two people in fact. Martin only reverted twice, another editor once. No disruptive edit warring there. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. My Apologies as I misunderstood edit warring versus content dispute.70.91.216.5 (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Just an update - this content dispute is still going on. I've been making comments of substance to the Talk page, while others have conspired to assist in reverting without making useful comments in Talk. I'm am now being accused of edit warring, however I understood this to be a content dispute per the above, so now I'm confused. Can you provide guidance? Thank you. 2601:182:C001:AAD1:ACF9:D78E:C819:213C (talk) 04:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I am reporting an edit war on the page Popular_Republican_Union_(2007) that had been lasting for at least 6 months, consuming so much of my time to try to protect the page. Users involved: User:78.250.33.145, User:84.100.171.95, User:86.68.87.172, User:86.68.87.219, User:86.68.87.24, User:86.68.87.55, User:86.74.28.232, User:78.250.19.230 and the only active currently User:Francis Le français.

The cause of the disagreement are these topics:

1. Is the part related to Departmental election is valid or does it fall under WP:NOT? Discussion here
2. What is the political positioning of UPR? Several proposal in the talk including: neither right nor left, syncretic, centrist, diverse, far right, sovereignist. Discussion here
3. Is bondy blog source valid? . Discussion here
4. Lamayenneonadore source valid? Discussion here
5. Official radio of quebec university choq.ca valid source? Discussion here
6. Announcement of presidential candidacy at national congress, does it fall under 5P? Discussion here
7. Asselineau sitting with UMP members at Paris counsel or member of the UMP? [Edit war]

I attempted every way possible to solve the issue in a calm way. History of the conflict:

• [edit war on page with some IPs], I invite them to discuss but my request is ignored that leaded to [page protection by admin against IP contributors].
• [After forcing them to explain their motive on the talk page, except first topic, all discussions are to explain to the other party the reasons the changes are not proper]. Sometimes, their request were justified and I integrated the change in the article.
• [Discussions went on my talk page from this topic and all following]
• Due to their persistence, I filled a request for 3rd party opinion. But it was declined.
• [At the same time, I had a strong doubt on socketpuppet usage], since several IPs and Francis le Francais had same complains, and same style of contribution half in French, half in Frenglish which was concluded with an advice on behavioral monitoring
• [RFC opened] but the other party refuse the comments brought by experienced user "focusandlearn"
• [RFM, but refused] due to lack of French understanding of the board
• [DRN opened but refused] because the proper place to solve the issue should be admin board according to Jaaron95

And one more thing, if you would like to see what would happen to the article if I would not have protect it, you can see the disaster created by this user on [[35]]. Waiting your suggestions. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete
  diffs. — MusikAnimal ^talk
  02:05, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  Note we've got people looking into this. That includes myself, but since I can't speak French I can only do but so much... Other patrolling admins can consider this report resolved for the time being — MusikAnimal ^talk 02:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  Maybe the first thing

  conflict of interest when he edits the articles UPR and François Asselineau because he has official responsibilities in this party. I think that he bears the primary responsibility for all the edit wars that might have taken place on both articles because he cannot edit them in an unbiased way. --Lebob (talk

  ) 16:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• conflict of interest, and D0kkaebi has the front to come forward and shamelessly complain that he - of all people! - has to "to protect the page"!
  Stop now! This is becoming really indecent... --Azurfrog (talk
  ) 17:01, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Popular Republican Union (2007) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Francis Le français (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. version after admin warned of dispute
2. but several mini correction happened and basically this is the original version without war topics

Diffs of the user's reverts (actually I could list 50 reverts since this war is a happening for 6 months and I tried many other way before (3Ropinion, RFC, mediation, RFM...)):

1. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 673731805 by D0kkaebi (talk)ump 2006 ->reliable and true source + exclusively + most (not one of the most) + citation needed are not bad sources removal)
2. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 673751515 by Francis Le français (talk) you proceed again very questionable changes such as source removal without discussion)
3. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (less "centrist")
4. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (is it that complicate for you to wait the result of rfc before proceeding changes !!!!)
5. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (for you it's hard not hide behind RFC ( citation needed isn't in rfc !! !! ))
6. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 674516923 The sources doesnt mention Asselineau belong to UMP party)
7. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 674597205 by D0kkaebi (talk) the source say : "élue présidente du groupe UMP ... vient de recevoir la démission d'un membre de son groupe : Celle de François Asselineau...")
8. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (So it means he was sitting with ump group at the assembly not that he belonged to the party)
9. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 674993459 by D0kkaebi (talk) So it means you don't respect the source - original research WP:OR)
10. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (The source is saying is leaving the group ump at the counseil of paris not that he belonged to ump party. Read carefully the sources !!!)
11. Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 675143581 by (talk)the source say : "élue présidente du groupe UMP .. vient de recevoir la démission d'un membre de son groupe : Celle de François Asselineau" + centrist? gaullism? revue republicaine?)
12. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (From her group at the paris counsel !!! You dont need to be ump member to sit with ump group like Collart sits with FN without being FN !!!!! You get it now?)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

1. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You need to read accurately the sources and not interpret as you want WP:POV. You need to respect the consensus before changing things as you feel like)
2. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Change upon RFC result, thank you to respect consensus)
3. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (If no consensus then it should return to the state before the claim happens and until decision is taken)
4. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Since there is dispute, until resolution is done, basic principle is to stick to version before the claims. Edit war is useless and time consuming)
5. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (You have been warned by another user, Aya, one more, on your non-collaborative behavior)
6. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 678312643 by Francis Le français (talk) last warning)
7. D0kkaebi (discussion | contributions) (Reporting to Edit war page and admin noticeboard)
8. Still he reverted again after Francis Le français (discussion | contributions) (Undid revision 679332880 by D0kkaebi (talk) war edit by you)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

1. Is the part related to Departmental election is valid or does it fall under WP:NOT? Discussion here
2. What is the political positioning of UPR? Several proposal in the talk including: neither right nor left, syncretic, centrist, diverse, far right, sovereignist. Discussion here
3. Is bondy blog source valid? . Discussion here
4. Lamayenneonadore source valid? Discussion here
5. Official radio of quebec university choq.ca valid source? Discussion here
6. Announcement of presidential candidacy at national congress, does it fall under 5P? Discussion here
7. Asselineau sitting with UMP members at Paris counsel or member of the UMP? [Edit war]

Comments:

Please note that I tried every way possible to resolve the issue for 6 months against IPs then Francis le Francais:

• [edit war on page with some IPs], I invite them to discuss but my request is ignored that leaded to [page protection by admin against IP contributors].
• [After forcing them to explain their motive on the talk page, except first topic, all discussions are to explain to the other party the reasons the changes are not proper]. Sometimes, their request were justified and I integrated the change in the article.
• [Discussions went on my talk page from this topic and all following]
• Due to their persistence, I filled a request for 3rd party opinion. But it was declined.
• [At the same time, I had a strong doubt on socketpuppet usage], since several IPs and Francis le Francais had same complains, and same style of contribution half in French, half in Frenglish which was concluded with an advice on behavioral monitoring
• [RFC opened] but the other party refuse the comments brought by experienced user "focusandlearn"
• [RFM, but refused] due to lack of French understanding of the board
• [DRN opened but refused] because the proper place to solve the issue should be admin board according to Jaaron95

D0kkaebi (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked by another admin. --slakr^\ talk / 03:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  As per above: Shall we, after all, have to state who

  conflict of interest, and D0kkaebi has the front to come forward and shamelessly complain that he - of all people! - has to "to protect the page"! Come on now!
  I don't have any specific opinion on whether or not User:Francis Le français's edits are legit; but at any rate, let's not be fooled by D0kkaebi's claims: the way he manages his COI is becoming really indecent... --Azurfrog (talk

  ) 17:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

talk | history | links | watch | logs

)

User being reported

2602:306:CF91:4110:D80E:6EBA:8AFA:4641 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Y'all can't tell me what to do. Leave me alone and stay out of my business. If I want to make disruptive edits then I'm gong to make disruptive edits. I have the First Amendment right to do disruptive edits."
2. 14:20, 4 September 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 14:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"
2. 14:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Keep external links to External links sections at the bottom of an article on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

WHile they have not violated 3RR from this IP today, the following edit summary is of concern: "Y'all can't tell me what to do. Leave me alone and stay out of my business. If I want to make disruptive edits then I'm gong to make disruptive edits. I have the First Amendment right to do disruptive edits." Scr★pIron^IV 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week. Page semi-protected for one month given the amount of IP disruption to that article. Lol at that edit summary though! Swarm ♠ 01:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

One month is not long enough. There is a FB group dedicated to harassing and denigrating this girl (Lukasiak), including inserting disruptive editing to include inaccurate and offensive sexual material onto her Wikipedia page. If you just block this person for a week and semi-protect the page for only a month, it will pick up right where it left off as soon as the protection is gone. Lukasiak is a minor, and we need you to enforce your rules & protect her. Thank you for your consideration. 184.170.167.19 (talk) 14:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)CucFan

Page: Portal:Current events/2015 August 27 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: RaqiwasSushi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 68.231.26.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm not in this war, I'm just reporting that it's been happening for days, as can be seen from [36]. —Largo Plazo (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Comment

Apparently bot-generated edit warring alerts were sent to two unregistered users. I, User:RaqiwasSushi, did not receive a warning though deeply involved.(**) Through this, my changes were explained in edit summary, with blind HTML, talk pages.

Thursday, about 3 am EDT, I yelled "HELP" on the Help Desk page where I posted a summary of the experience. User:68.231.26.111 did comment there. Recommendation was we move this to Portal talk:Current events/2015 August 27.

Later that morning I did that, hoping to get a discussion started. No comment from the other user later that day or now. There was an alert that my rewrite for NLRB, 8/27 was "undone." But when checked the item, the content was not changed. Couldn't find user's talk page. ... Today is was "undone" again.

Last night I thought at least for this one event problem was moot. WRONG Just checked item; changed again. Not over. UGH!

Appreciate advice on proper, next step.RaqiwasSushi (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Wrote too soon. Edit war alert to me, had been there since 10:46 EDT today. No more changes on item, which had been my intention yesterday until I jumped to the wrong conclusion last night. There is no conclusion.(** above)RaqiwasSushi (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• IP user 68.231.. Blocked – for a period of 60 hours by Drmies. Reasoning for not blocking the account has been given and I agree entirely with that decision. Swarm ♠ 02:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Page

Bidco Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:57, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Ethical issues */ The information on this page is inaccurate and defamatory"
2. 16:03, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Ethical issues */ The information on this page is false, defamatory and malicious"
3. 16:08, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Ethical Issues */ This entire section is false and carries false data"
4. 16:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Ethical issues */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on
   TW
   )"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Page protected by
  Chillum. Swarm ♠
  02:00, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• talk
  ) 18:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of one week Swarm ♠ 02:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: The Martian (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and The Imitation Game (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 118.172.31.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [38]
2. [39]
3. [40]
4. [41]
5. [42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

Comments:
This IP has threatened to and is most likely using more than one account, for example Special:Contributions/118.172.27.45, and is at both The Martian (film)‎ and The Imitation Game removing cited sources and contradicting them. The two film articles will need auto-protection to prevent similar edit warring from other IP addresses. Note edit summary from IP: stupid ass dont be double standard The American Martian Directed and made by britsh you say its an american. The British Flim Imitation Game directed by american you say its an american film I have 1000 ip addresses and i will keep editing dumbass

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours and semi-protected for a week. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:11, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Template:Palestinian Arab villages depopulated during the 1948 Palestinian exodus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: dif

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 22:53, 4 September 2015
2. 23:01, 4 September 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warned

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

Comments:

This template has been mostly quiet, for the last 5-6 years (which is rather exceptional in the Israel/Palestine area). User:Alakzi then earlier today brought up what is actually a nice simplification here...which -very unfortunately- made Pigsonthewing aware of this template. He then proceeds to turn it into "standard colour"...not knowing a thing about the Israel/Palestine conflict, where the colour blue is typically associated with Israel (.....take a look at the flag..) and where green is associated with the Muslim Palestinian majority. This is a highly political change; unfortunately I am in some doubt that Pigsonthewing is even aware of this. <facepalm>

Also, Pigsonthewing claims that the template is "not an article"--which, narrowly, is correct; however the sanctions in the I/P area very specifically mentions; "broadly constructed"...In my understanding; everything pertaining to the conflict is covered. And the 1948-depopulated villages are at *the very centre* of the conflict. Hence: 1RR. Huldra (talk) 23:37, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• This template is part of many I/P-related articles, so of course it is covered by ARBPIA. Huldra is right that the colors are sensitive. If there are accessibility problems with the template then a discussion should be opened so that a solution meeting the requirements of the area can be found. Pigsonthewing should cease trying to force a change without taking these matters into account. For the information of admins, I'll note that Pigsonthewing is not a regular of the I/P area so shouldn't be treated like a warrior there. Zero^talk 00:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• Well, light blue is the navbox default; I think people would catch on pretty quickly, if they were to visit other articles. In fact, of all the navboxes in
  talk
  ) 00:21, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
• A template consisting of content transcluded into an article qualifies under "broadly construed", FWIW. That said, PotW isn't a warrior there; some people are color blind and don't know or remember what color flags are; and color stuff like that doesn't always occur to everyone immediately, if they're focused on something else. Also, if people want templates to be subject to the
  WP:BATTLEGROUNDers, and generally don't run into ACDS problems to begin with.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢
   ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  01:08, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Any way to remove ANY color from this navbox? End of problem. Montanabw^(talk) 06:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Declined The template does fall under the DS. However, I think that Andy was acting in good faith and was not attempting to make an edit "relating to the topic". I see that a discussion is ongoing and it should play out there. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:23, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Page: Glyphosate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User reporting: DrChrissy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [45]
2. [46]
3. [47]
4. [48]
5. [49]
6. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [Talk:Glyphosate#Toxicity expansion]

Comments:

These are only some of the reverts that Jytdog has performed today (September 1, 2015) at this article. There is ongoing discussion about recent edits on the Talk page involving multiple editors, but Jytdog's large-scale reversions are extremely disruptive to this process.DrChrissy ^(talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This noticeboard is starting to look like the GMO content dispute noticeboard. For goodness' sake, please just full-protect the page. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with the protection just to settle everyone down for a bit. It seems like some of the more recent edit warring cases related to other GMO articles above got other editors active all of a sudden.

talk

) 01:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ugh yes, please lock the article. I drafted a case earlier today and withdrew it as I was hoping to work things out on Talk but my RW job ate my day. (still buried and just peeped my head in only to find this)

The aggressive editig continues in the GM suite - the destabilizing started by Prokaryotes is spreading, with DrChrissy unfortunately broadening and deepening his field of conflict with me and other persistent anti-GMO editors joining in. Things are not looking rosy.

But yes today DrChrissy decided to make a significant expansion to the toxicity section, adding loads of

WP:TECHNICAL

detail in some places like 'In a study of rats and mice fed diets of containing 0%, 0.3125%, 0.625%, 1.25%, 2.5%, or 5.0% glyphosate for 13 weeks, endocrine effects..." or "Pregnant rats given 3,500 mg/kg/day glyphosate by gavage (stomach tube) on gestation days 6-19 suffered effects including both increased maternal mortality and the number of fetal skeletal abnormalities" (3,500 mg/kg/day is a huge amount of glyphosate).

and in other places adding really introductory explanations (eg. explaining what LD50 is) and nonsense babytalk like "Glyphosate can be lethal to non-human mammals." (nonsense because you can put any noun or gerund into the place where "glyphosate" sits and it will be true b/c The dose makes the poison. Anyway here are some diffs but this doesn't come close to capturing today's disruptions

1. diff and dif expanded Tox section, big expansion without discussion.
   WP:BOLD
   yes but reckless on an article like this
2. diff reversion restoring it after I removed it
3. diff again
4. diff expanding yet more after objections already raised on talk

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning to DrChrissy: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: section and section

yes please lock the article so we can discuss. Jytdog (talk) 00:57, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

(