Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive243

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Md iet reported by User:Summichum (Result: )[edit]

Page
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Md iet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:31, 23 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605416894, News about support of dawoodi bohra, and news of FM having mention of 'accession to the 53rd Dā'ī office' is retained. Please don't attempt 3rd for complete matter removal."
  2. 06:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605382698 by Summichum (talk)Condolences as son does not carry any weightage but condolences with remark as new leader carry weightage here as support.."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:58, 23 April 2014 (UTC) "/* salaman khurshid content has no relation to succesion controversy */ new section"
  2. 05:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "/* salaman khurshid content has no relation to succesion controversy */"

 Comment: this is second time user:summichum has refered to Notice board without prior warning and discussion.Rukn950 (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Comments:

This user is having a COI and trying to add irrelevant offtopic text into article.

This has been proven from [1] that both of the above editors are die hard followers of the dawoodi bohra religion and Mufaddal, Khuzaima are the two rival leaders of the religion and they are not letting another non aligned editors like User:Anupmehra , admin User:Crisco 1492 and other users like User:Ftutocdg to make neutral changes as per the available media reports of the people involved.

I had edited as per User:Anupmehra as he is also the one without any conflict of interest , the other two editors have clearly shown their conflict of interest as they have proclaimed that they are followers of Mufaddal Saifuddin whereas I am not even born into that community but when I saw the initial versions I was suprised how people were pushing their POV without any evidence on such a famous issue of succession controversy which is now appearing almost daily in many Indian media. I had MADE the edit request after modifications requested by Anup Mehra .

 Comment: even though he may not be born in this community but summichum's Vandals (Diff:[2],[3]) has seen no limits. His POV speaks as loud as blowhorn.Rukn950 (talk) 12:00, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Proof:

And Off-course I am True Dawoodi Bohra and I have concern that these Articles not be used as propaganda,The POV user Summichum again and again tries to impose. I have direct interest in this issue. As follower of Mufaddal Saifuddin. I will not tolerate blatant lies made by summichum or any other bad faith editors. Still as my fellow editors would attest That I am assuming good faith.

— Rukn950 (talk) 07:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)


.... can judge the face of Moula when he was sitting on the bridge near Raudat Tahera and taking salaami( guard) on his birthday, his face was full of happiness(same thing on the day of Nass at Raudat Tahera), we can visualise tears of joy in his eyes, when hundreds of thousands were crossing in front of him with folded hands whipping and crying "moula, Moula" and he was trying to raise his hand again and again in return but was abiding god's will. Mufaddal was sitting near, where was Khuzaima then? Why I am writing all these here, myself don't know, please understand

— --Md iet 12:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

 Comment:: I would like to add that summichum is quoting us out of context from another article's talk page.Rukn950 (talk) 08:17, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

I also request User:Anupmehra to look into this matter as he is a trusted third party and is highly experienced in handling these issues on wikipedia and knows about what happened in talk page. Summichum (talk) 18:05, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Summichum (talk) 05:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Summichum (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

admins please look into the matter.Summichum (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Pk041 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Shabbir Sharif (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pk041 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [4]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 22 April
  2. 22 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: GS/Caste warning

Comments:
Pk041 is under 1RR sanction on castes/social groups related articles but he/she is persistently adding caste association in this article. -- SMS Talk 16:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Blocked indef. When sanctions are issued, the hope is that the user will stay away from the kind of edits that cause trouble and will become productive in other ways. There's no indication that this editor understands the sanctions or has any intention to follow them. His talk page is full of warnings (since late 2012) and he has never made any kind of response on his talk page. Any admin may lift this block if they are convinced that the user understands Wikipedia policy and will follow it in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 15:04, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:SyossuPL reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page
Courthouse in Września (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SyossuPL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "GL&HF :*"
  2. 12:11, 24 April 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 11:59, 24 April 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:50, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "Notifying author of deletion nomination for Courthouse in Września"
  2. 12:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Courthouse in Września‎. (TW)"
  3. 12:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Courthouse in Września‎. (TW)"
  4. 12:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removing speedy deletion tags on Courthouse in Września. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 12:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "/* Contested deletion */"
Comments:

This is a bit of a mess: it looks as if an article on a building has been nominated for speedy deletion A-7, erroneously and repeatedly, and in fact deleted. A-7 doesn't apply to buildings. The (new, school-project) editor who created the article repeatedly removed the tag (though probably without understanding that it was in fact incorrectly applied, or they might have pointed it out). Mistakes all round: one editor repeatedly incorrectly speedying a building; one new editor repeatedly removing that tag; one admin erroneously deleting. Ouch. PamD 14:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I am the admin who mistakenly deleted this as A7. SyossuPL reverted 3 times, so formally 3RR was not violated. Dudel250 and myself are admonished to familiarize themselves better with the CSD criteria... Randykitty (talk) 15:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by memills:Memills (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: Leavingtherain


Previous version reverted to -- see recent History

User's reverts -- see the recent History

The user Leavingtherain is edit warring -- repeatedly removing properly sourced material without an explanation, and, without, as requested, taking the issue to the Talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: See recent History

The user cannot be contacted because he/she doesn't have a user or a talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

In the article History, I requested that Leavingtherain take the issue to the Talk page before making reversions. He/she has not done so. Also, I note that these are the only edits that this editor has made to WP.

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined A few reversions over several days is not enough edit warring to justify a block. I've put a note on the user's page to engage in constructive discussion. Meanwhile, you could start this discussion on the talk page yourself, no need to wait for another editor to start one. Leavingtherain, as you note, is a newbie and might not yet know much of the way we do things. I see that you have not tried to engage the user on their own talk page either. I also note that you did not notify them of this posting, as is required (see top of this page). Please beware of WP:BITE. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:SergiSmiler reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: )[edit]

Page
Britney Spears discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
SergiSmiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts

SergiSmiler made 4 reverts, trying to introduce (poor) information into the article.

Attempt 1, reverting User:Status

Attempt 2, reverting User:Status

Attempt 3, reverting User:Status

Attempt 4, reverting User:Tomica

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User:Status tried to resolve the edit war on SergiSmiler talk page.

Comments:

This user is incredibly disruptive, continuously warned about their edits, has had 10 warning altogether over the past months and blocked twice, once in October 2013 and the other in December 2013 for 1 Month for disruptive editing. There is a language barrier and a very stubborn temperament that he refuses to cooperate with other editors after they warn and give reasons as to why his edits are reverted. LADY LOTUSTALK 20:06, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:I like the truth reported by User:RJFF (Result: indeffed)[edit]

Page: Sweden Democrats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: I like the truth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [5]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [6]
  2. [7]
  3. [8]
  4. [9]
  5. [10]
  6. [11]
  7. [12]
  8. [13]
  9. [14]

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

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

Comments:

This is related to a post that I made at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possible edit war on Sweden Democrats. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 21:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Gumanthakur reported by User:Dudel250 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page
Goldrop Adventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Gumanthakur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC) "Goldrop Adventures"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 08:19, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
  2. 08:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removing speedy deletion tags on Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
  3. 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) "Notification: speedy deletion nomination of Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
  4. 04:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Using Wikipedia for advertising or promotion on Goldrop Adventures. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Had recreated the page after it got deleted one time before under G11 Dudel250 (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined This has nothing to do with edit-warring the panda ₯’ 23:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User:94.55.39.189 reported by User:IJBall (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: List of metro systems (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.55.39.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

(And, earlier: link )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: n/a

Comments:

IP user 94.55.39.189 has been reverted by at least one other editor besides myself since April 13, and has been warned multiple times at the IP user's Talk page that this behavior constitutes "edit warring" and that they should go to the List of metro systems Talk page to discuss this issue - the IP user has ignored all such entreaties. Worse, IP user 94.55.39.189 went so far as to delete the entry in question (diff) back on April 20 in retaliation for a previous reversion, which could probably be considered article vandalism.

  • Result: Article semiprotected one month. The talk page is almost entirely a discussion among registered editors. If IPs will participate more actively there and will wait for consensus on contested items, the protection might be lifted. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Central Casting reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: IP blocked)[edit]

Page: Vader (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Central Casting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 217.96.115.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [17]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [18]
  2. [19]
  3. [20]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [21] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Comments:
User was blocked previously for this exact behaviour: making changes without discussion or sources to the same Polish death metal bands, and constantly reverting to their preferred version. User shows no interest in working collaboratively on this project, refuses to discuss their edits, etc. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale They have not edited in over a week the panda ₯’ 23:27, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
They edited today, see [23]. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 23:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Summichum reported by User:Rukn950 (Result: )[edit]

Page
53rd Syedna succession controversy (Dawoodi Bohra) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page
Mohammed Burhanuddin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Summichum (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I request Admin to better look to the edit pattern of user Summichum and his history. He is assuming ownership of the above mentioned article. and other related articles. his POV is clear. and refering to Notice board, good faith editors has become his habit.he is assuming bad faith of other editors. his sole purpose in joining is to promote his POV and reverts any other good faith edits. Infact I request user:summichum should be blocked again, he never seems to learn from his previous blocks.Rukn950 (talk) 07:39, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Please refer COI NB [24] and succession talk page [25], intention of Summichum would be clear, may please consider accordingly. He has reverted the matter immediately twice and stopped doing third, only after my advice of not to get blocked and avoid 3RR case. He wants to support only his POV irrespective of Wiki norms at any cost, and disrupting normal process.--Md iet (talk) 10:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Difference in 53rd_Syedna_succession_controversy

Diff:[26]

Diff:[27]

Diff:[28]

Difference in Mohammed Burhanuddin

Diff:[29]

Diff:[30]

Diff:[31]

Along with his reverts please see the matter he tries to impose.Rukn950 (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Diff:[32]

Attempt to reason and resolve this dispute:

Please Refer [33]

Summichum kept on inserting Pritish Nandy qoute even after reasoning with him about its WP:BLPGOSSIP violation as same was removed from another article Diff:[34] by Admin Mr. Stradivarius

The qoute by Summichum showing his POV[edit]

‘The much cited ghadir khum incident was not a succession deed (Nass) but rather to resolve misunderstandings between a group who complained about Ali to the prophet , and the prophet said "Whoever takes me as his patron , should also take Ali as his patron" and this was said in ghadir and not in the final Haj. If there had to be a succession then it should have been made at a place where all people gathered and not ghadir khumm. In short the prophet did not say that after me some person like Abu Bakr, Ali etc would be the caliph\Imam. The fatimid bohras like dawoodi bohras are a minority group who have invented their own religion and mainstream Islam does not recognize them as Muslims’... Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talk • contribs) 03:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

' Comment: 'This is a Serious allegation against Islam as whole. Summichum should be strictly restrained in interest of integrity of Wikipedia and prevention of Vandalism.Rukn950 (talk) 11:18, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

As usual, seems like Summichum is not going to stop using Dawoodi Bohras or Mufaddal Saifuddin's page as battlefield. OccultZone (Talk) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I strongly agree with Rukn950 as argued at [35], a strong action is requested please.--Md iet (talk) 04:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


The above users are reported at COI noticeboard and one of them also have a track record of sockpuppetry . The above users all belong to one partisan group and they are trying to use Wiki as advertisement propaganda page , selectively hiding important information . I was the one ho sought third party intervention of User:Anupmehra , I suggest ruqn , md_iet should be blocked from editing bohra articles. A lot have been written about their behaviour in almost all the major notice boards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Summichum (talkcontribs) 15:51, 25 April 2014 (UTC) Summichum (talk) 15:52, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Summichum (talkcontribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

now summichum is getting personal. and accuses us of propaganda when he himself does so. I am surprised at his audacity.Rukn950 (talk)

may please see discussion at[36], Summichum has accepted that he is from one of Ismaili shia group, and started behaving somewhat in cordial manner, but his tone is still too much offencive. Nizari are Ismailies but they follow Fatimid, have their Imam and almost no competition with any Bohra group. Alavi group Mazoon came to Mufaddal for condolences, and they principally have no differences. Now left out are Suleimani and progressive one. Sulaymani are also accepted the facts and happy with their group. This fellow claims that he is not born in Dawoodi Bohra, let us believe him and there is full possibility that he is from young progressive group , born after seventies, after separation from DB. This group don't have their Dai or any leader. They are feeling isolated, frustrated and very zealous of their fellow DB. They also want to get attached with Khuzaima to have something of their own and eager to form Qutbi Bohra. Khuzaima group is clever, he don't want to have separate name and want to get hold property of mass DB group and wanted to call themselves DB, but only few hundred real DB are with him.

Being disciplined follower of Wiki, and being DB also, we want to honour WIki regulations, but some how doing attempt to bring the real truth to public. We are not against having well published matter, although not a fact to have NPOV here at Wiki, but this fellow is adamant and somehow not able to sustain anything just written not in his favour. He has gone too far blaming Shia faith itself, to prove him right although claiming himself a Ismaili shia follower of Ali.

This fellow seems to be learned man, and trying to get cordial with us. We also don't want any personal harassment to anybody, as well principled by Wiki. We request him to not to take matter up to community level involving complete Shia community just for blaming DB. He may be having opinion difference, his opinion is his choice , we honour his freedom, but not this way please. Hope it is still time he respect Wiki principles above all. We are soldiers of Wiki and as being DB also we will further try to keep wiki above all and restrain us to the extent possible. Conduct of accusing complete community above is beyond any limit, and we all hope that situation to have edit restriction on DB topics is not good, not reflecting the principle of tolerance DB community have towards other faith. Hope we all including me will further restrain so to abide wiki rules completely. You Sumichum, searching our old accounts and finding our mistakes. Our intentions were never bad. I was just helping my nephew to open his wiki account with full of his agreement, when I was on visit to his place. He never continued further and I was trapped, which I have openly accepted.

Mr. Sumichum , please cooperate. You are blocked twice recently. No one wants there name on notice board. You put your claim on talk page with proper citation( for the god sake don't bring Azad or Bohra Youth forum news which are purely written to propogate hate propaganda), we will definitely cooperate. We have quoted from 'BM' theinternational DB magazine, published by private publication. It's authencity was questioned ,so we have put up the case in 'reliable source NB' and never reinstated the material. Shiv Sena has it's controlled news paper, having vide accepted circulation in Mumbai, whether Wiki will object to it's news inclusion, if not then BM case is similar and to be discussed comparing that. We will never oppose any matter if it is as per wiki rules even though not true. Let Ajay Mehra be our umpire till your aggression calm down, as he is having in depth knowledge of wiki guidelines and a true third party editor.--Md iet (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:75.62.20.174 reported by User:Savvyjack23 (Result: blocked as sock)[edit]

Page: Afro-Latin American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.62.20.174 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41]

Comments:
75.62.20.174 has made persistent reverts, disregarding numerous attempts to settle it through the talk page all throughout its process and have had a fair share of warning. I have also included a "citation needed" where the topic of conflict lies.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 6 months. This is JohnnyOrgseed evading his block. Kuru (talk) 13:32, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:MiG29VN reported by User:Txantimedia (Result: 2 weeks)[edit]

Page: Massacre at Huế (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MiG29VN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [42]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [43]
  2. [44]
  3. [45]
  4. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:I've been working hard fixing the cites on this page and adding missing ones. This guy keeps removing some and reverting others to improperly formatted cites. I've asked him to stop it. So have others. But he persists. He's already been warned about edit warring and blocked for 30 hours, but he continues. It's getting quite old.Txantimedia (talk) 03:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't revert his edit. I only ask him "Add the link for his source" and i will revmove the "fact", but he didn't do thatMiG29VN (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Please see (http://www.vlink.com/mauthan/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1236530105&archive=&start_from=&ucat=1&). This is Self-published, it isn't a reliable source, and i removed it. But Txantimedia reverted it. Addition, he claimed that he used FAKE figures in other source (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Massacre_at_Hu%E1%BA%BF#Unreliable_sources.3F (3-7th lines)) MiG29VN (talk) 04:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I have NEVER "claimed that I used FAKE figured in other source". What I said was I added up the numbers that Vennema provides and wrote the total. I can't reprint the entire fucking boook inside the Wiki page to shut your stupid mouth up. The Massacre is covered from pages 129-141. Each grave site is discussed individually and a total given. A third grader can add them up. Providing the total is NOT FAKE FIGURES. GAWD this is getting old. I'm trying to provide facts that I've uncovered in my research, and this jerk is claiming I'm lying because he doesn't have a copy of the book.
I quoted as you said: "Vennema does not provide a total number of graves or a total number of bodies" - As you said, So, WHY do you add that EXACT NUMBER in there (27, 2,397, etc...)? I don't said you "reprint the entire a book", you only scan (or use camera) this page, which have this number (27 graves, 2,397 bodies)MiG29VN (talk) 15:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I've already explained to him on the Talk page that it is an eyewitness account that falls into the exception for self-published content. The author was a member of the lower House of the RVN congress and was in Hue during Tet. He witnessed the events and interviewed a number of his constituents. Yet he's removed it every time I've fixed it. Without explanation and without notice. It's getting very old. He just keeps claiming the cites are fake and removes them. [49] Txantimedia (talk) 04:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Jeezus, he's done it AGAIN!! PLEASE tell this guy to stop it. [50]
Please: Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as:

the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; it does not involve claims about third parties; it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; the article is not based primarily on such sources.
Remember, this is a battle in history, not "information about themselves", not "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity"MiG29VN (talk) 04:27, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you serious? the material is not self-serving or an exceptional claim, there is no reasonable doubt about its authenticity and it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source. Can you not read??? Txantimedia (talk) 04:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
"it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source" - It's one of matters. An article is directly related to the sourceMiG29VN (talk) 06:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

───────────────────────── What needs to be made clear here is that Txantimedia is an extremely new user who has been given an extremely hostile reception by MiG29VN, and that MiG29VN has a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry at this article. MiG29VN is simply far too quick to revert, and his edits are often sloppy. Even if VLink is a questionable source, there is no excuse for MiG29VN to delete references to Vennema's book (and tag the material cited to Vennema) on the grounds that he doesn't have access to the book, or to perpetually replace the neutral term "accuracy" with the POV "truthfulness". From issuing random threats and ultimatums to screaming that a source is "FAKE" because an editor combined its numbers with basic addition, MiG29VN has not been conducting himself in a very civil manner--and the way his careless edits constantly disrupt the formatting and language of the article makes any progress impossible.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 05:30, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Please, I didn't removed all of Venemma source. I only remove some words, which none in this figure (I ask him "add the quoted and i will agree", but he did't quote)MiG29VN (talk) 06:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
That's a DAMN lie. You have REPEATEDLY removed the Vennema cites. Now you have labeled them as unreliable. How many God Damn times do I have to tell you I HAVE THE FUCKING BOOK. Just because you can't find it in Google books does not mean it's not there. If you have a damn problem, bring it up in talk instead of arbitrarily removing cites without justification. Furthermore, every time you edit the page you fuck up the cites I have repeatedly fixed. I'm getting damn sick and tired of it. You obviously don't understand how Wikipedia works.

This user, MiG29VN, has:

  • Used fake references to cite his content, references which don't even mention anything about the content he claims it supports. e.g. here, here, and here. Yet, he runs around and deletes other people's references, calling them "unreliable", "fake", or "self-publish".
  • Removes references to content he hates, then later removes the content altogether because "it's unsourced" or "unreliable source"
  • Total disregard for other people's contributions, and forces that his version be used only, even if it meant deleting improvements and new content
  • MiGVN doesn't truly understand what are reliable sources and what's not. He has made the declaration that "In wikipedia's law, and we agreed History.net and xxx.edu are the reliable sources". An online criminal can create a malware site using the .edu domain, or any fake "educational" institution can create an .edu website, and those will still be considered "reliable sources"?
  • Tried to falsely, deceptively frame opposing editors (myself and Andreas Philopater) as "vandals", in order to get unsuspecting, unaware users to delete content that I and Andreas have contributed that MiG dislikes. MiG wants other users to delete content for him, so that way he's not on the hook for edit-warring.
  • Engaged in extensive copyvios, by copy-and-pasting whole swaths of text into the Massacre at Huế#Dispute and denial section. Esp. his English is poor, yet how does he manage to "write in flawless English" in his article contribs??? Evidence of poor grasp of English: Here and all his responses in sections below When TheTimesAreAChanging paraphrased and summarized his content, MIGVN insists that the original copy-paste version be used. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Correction, you referenced David Hunter, a US Unionist military commander in the US Civil War, not Hunt, then you changed when you're busted. Nguyễn Quốc Việt (talk) 11:41, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 2 weeks to MiG29VN for violation of WP:3RR. Editor has already been blocked twice in connection with this article. WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard may be consulted if the quality of a source is in question. Admins should consider fully protecting this article if people continue to revert without adequate discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
He's done it AGAIN! Either this guy gets banned permanently, or I will quit editing pages. I don't need this crap. I'm using reliable sources and typing factual information, and this asshole keeps deleting the references or marking them as unreliable when he doesn't have the fucking book or altering the text to suit his POV. I've HAD it. Either fix the situation, or I'm done.

User:Roscelese reported by User:BoboMeowCat (Result: )[edit]

Page: Catholic politicians, abortion and communion or excommunication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (subject to 1RR, like all abortion-related pages)
User being reported: Roscelese (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [51]

Diffs of the user's reverts: 4 violations of 1RR rule in past 4 days — Preceding unsigned comment added by BoboMeowCat (talkcontribs) 17:28, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  1. [52]
  2. [53]


  1. [54]
  2. [55]


  1. [56]
  2. [57]
  3. [58]


  1. [59]
  2. [60]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61] [62]

Comments: I was originally hesitant to bring this to the noticeboard, because today's revert violated 24 hour rule by only 1 hour, but a review of the article's edit history showed *four* violations of the 1RR rule, by this user, in just the past 4 days. User repeatedly reverts and/or deletes contributions of other editors, instead of consensus building on talk page. History of disruptive editing on this page by this user.


User: DerbyCountyinNZ reported by User:Calidum (Result: )[edit]

Page: 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DerbyCountyinNZ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 8:55 p.m., 4/25

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 10:00 p.m., 4/25
  2. 12:37 a.m., 4/26
  3. 1:11 a.m. 4/26
  4. 2:11 a.m., 4/26
  5. 3:17 p.m., 4/26

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 2:19 a.m., 4/26

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

Comments:
Five different users have attempted to list Tito Vilanova's death in the 2014 article, but Derby has reverted each time. To their credit Derby started a relevant thread on the talk page, but reverting five different editors in 18 hours is the definition of edit warring. I am not involved in the dispute on the page but did warn Derby after four reverts. They replied to me that their actions "overrides 3RR" [63] Calidum 19:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
As an addendum, it also appears Derby is engaged in a separate edit war with 210.56.86.197 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) on the Arturo Licata article. I count five reverts by Derby (and four by the IP) on that page's history. [64] Calidum 19:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Smartestmanonearth reported by User:Cwobeel (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

Moved from WP:ANI: Please consult revision 605962864 for the original report.

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


Previous version reverted to: [65]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [66]
  2. [67]

The article is under 1RR, detailed at Talk:Bundy standoff/General Sanctions

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [68]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion seems to be at [69].

Comments:


This was originally reported at ANI, but I thought I'd move it here. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 02:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Clear breach of 1RR after having been notified of the sanctions. As such: Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety talk 03:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:MartianColony reported by User:Calidum (Result:24 hour block )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: 11:51 p.m., 4/25

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 11:50 a.m, 4/26
  2. 12:40 p.m., 4/26
  3. 12:43 p.m., 4/26
  4. 12:54 p.m, 4/26
  5. 1:07 p.m., 4/26

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:58 p.m., 4/26

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 12:58 p.m., 4/26. I also notified the user about this thread prior to his fifth revert [70]. Calidum 17:15, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet another revert by this user and continued refusal to address on the article's discussion page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Dougweller (talk) 10:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Mosfetfaser reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: not blocked )[edit]

Page
Dana Nuccitelli (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Mosfetfaser (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:03, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "blanking - requesting deletion by article creator"
  2. 19:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "blanking - requesting deletion by article creator"
  3. 19:00, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "blanking - requesting deletion - creator"
  4. 18:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "creator blanking not notable"
  5. 15:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "this is not a slur, it is simply another notable bloggers opinion presented as such"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Dana Nuccitelli. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "/* bloggers */"
Comments:

trying to get this article I created deleted - I tried to create the story but its not notable - I am the major creator - almost all the content is mine - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dana_Nuccitelli&action=history I think en wiki guidelines alow me to delete such articles? I am not well uunderstanding of the mark up here and I tried to send to article for deletion but did it wrong and although I got some help I also got this user reverting me without any assistance. Mosfetfaser (talk) 19:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked Page has been deleted at the editor's request, this is just a bit of confusion and inexperience. Dougweller (talk) 10:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:LibDutch, User:Michaelwuzthere and User:Trust Is All You Need reported by User:Trust Is All You Need (Result: Block, warnings)[edit]

Users being reported:

Articles in dispute:

Report:

  • First, LibDutch is removing material from WP on the basis of the Wikipedia:Citation needed tag (a user has complained about it on my talk page, believing it to be unconstructive, I concurred). I've been proven to him that Wikipedia:Citation needed and Wikipedia:Verifiability don't condon mass removal of chunks because they lack sources (especially when large chunks of that article lacks sources).. For instance, in the History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi LibDutch seeks to remove a large chunk of information on the opposition (albeit unreferenced) from the article, even if I proved to him that it was true.
  • Second, I and Michaelwuzthere are now currently waged in an edit war because he's opposing the consensus.. The edit war is simple; he wants to have Communism and Marxism-Leninism in the infobox, the consensus is only Marxism-Leninism. The reason? They are superfluous if both are in the same infobox since they mean exactly the same thing. To make it clear, I'm refering only to the infobox. Communism is mentioned throughout, but in a bid to make the infobox as clear as possible the consensus seems to be to only have one ideology in place (or more concret, the specific ideology and not the ideology in general and the more specific ideological orientation in communism)
There was never consensus over your edit which removed communism from the ideology. No, communism and Marxism-Leninism do not "mean exactly the same thing" and if you believe that then you frankly have no business editing the CPSU article. You may be under the delusion that consensus was ever reached, but there is no trace of consensus other than it not being reverted sooner by your own admission. An edit reversion taking a month on a low-traffic article does not equal consensus. Your edit is obviously controversial otherwise it wouldn't have been reverted by multiple editors. You need to take it to the talk if you want your edit to be restored, and if your argument is that Marxism-Leninism and communism mean the same thing, then your edit is not going to be restored because it is blatantly false. --Michaelwuzthere (talk) 18:21, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Its been reverted by you (and the only reason why LibDutch is joined in is because of the edit war at the libya page).. Just you, in other words.. Are communism and Marxism-Leninism the same thing? No, but in the Communist PArty of the Soviet Union they were the same thing; Marxism-Leninism was theory in which the Soviet policy based its policy, it was Marxism-Leninism which was used to reach pure communism. Marxism-Leninism was the only official ideology of the CPSU from 1927ish(?); Marxism (or more correctly, Marxism as interpreted by Lenin) being the sole before that... When regarding the CPSU they are one and the same thing.--TIAYN (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC) --TIAYN (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Third, I agree, the edit war between me and Michaelwuzthere is stupid (and we both deserve to be blocked for it), but LibDutch is actually breaching Wp policy and is on a manhunt to remove all information he deems false (he doesn't remove all unreferenced material, only the one he doesn't like...) --TIAYN (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
If you believe it is true then you can just add the source to the article instead of reverting my removal of text that lacked a source for 2 years. And you removed the word communism first, as you did to other articles like the 'Communist Party of Vietnam'. --LibDutch (talk) 18:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
In has stood like that on the Communist Party of Vietnam article for over a year now, if thats not consensus I don't know what is... If you believe it is true? What, I showed you a source from Cornell University Press; this is not a discussion of what is reliable or not, it is reliable according to WP policy, and you're edit-waring doesn't making anyless so. Stop being so abstract, and follow WP policy. --TIAYN (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
If you believe it covers the unsourced information and it is reliable, why don't you just add it to the article... Other editors can then also look at it.--LibDutch (talk) 18:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a huge violation of WP:3RR at History of Libya under Muammar Gaddafi by both LibDutch and TIAYN. It looks to be seven reverts apiece on April 26. In my opinion both parties should be blocked. Removal of unsourced material is sometimes justified but you can't edit war while doing so. There's also a three-way edit war among the named parties to this report at Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Can any of you explain why you shouldn't be blocked? EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I think all three of us should be blocked. --TIAYN (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Result: TIAYN blocked five days, the others warned. TIAYN has been blocked up to three days in the past and he appears to be the center of the various wars. The block can be lifted if he will agree to control himself in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:88.235.176.93 reported by User:Bibilili (Result: 24 hours )[edit]

User being reported
88.235.176.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user constantly reverts the 2014 latakia offensive article by adding a Non-NPOV source (Pro-Armenian).

Evidence:

09:49, 27 April 2014‎ 88.235.176.93 (talk)‎ . . (48,018 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 606005283 by Gazkthul (talk) (undo)

08:54, 27 April 2014‎ 88.235.176.93 (talk)‎ . . (48,018 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (→‎See also) (undo)

19:17, 26 April 2014‎ 88.235.176.93 (talk)‎ . . (47,325 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605867701 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

12:13, 26 April 2014‎ 88.235.176.93 (talk)‎ . . (47,325 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605867701 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

06:14, 26 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎ . . (47,325 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605782980 by Bibilili (talk)) (undo)

17:47, 25 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605776780 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

10:28, 25 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605722454 by Gazkthul (talk)) (undo)

07:56, 25 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605655444 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

14:19, 24 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605579461 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

08:35, 24 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605569496 by Gazkthul (talk)) (undo)

04:57, 24 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605496392 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

11:50, 23 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605429374 by Needbrains (talk)) (undo)

09:29, 23 April 2014‎ 88.235.154.59 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (→‎See also) (undo) 23 April 2014‎ 88.235.28.248 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (→‎See also) (undo)

23:16, 22 April 2014‎ Gazkthul (talk | contribs)‎ . . (47,065 bytes) (-134)‎ . . (Undid revision 605309628 by 88.235.174.106 (talk) This has been removed multiple times before, nothing has changed: non-NPOV, no reason given for inclusion)

15:33, 22 April 2014‎ 88.235.174.106 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (→‎See also) (undo)

05:34, 22 April 2014‎ 88.235.174.106 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (→‎See also) (undo)

10:45, 21 April 2014‎ 88.235.153.161 (talk)‎ . . (47,199 bytes) (+134)‎ . . (→‎See also) (undo)

Multiple users already warned him at his talk page, but he still continues. You notice that IP address sometimes change, but by using WhatsMyIpAddress, its always the same location.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety talk 13:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Admiral Kahn reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Indef )[edit]

Page
Template:Primetime Emmy hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Admiral Kahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 05:20, 25 April 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 06:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "This doesn't make any sense? I added new host of the emmys"
  3. 17:43, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "False // STOP your abusive reversions"
  4. 03:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Also: Matt Stone, Trey Parker. Have already filed an SPI/CU request for this account (see here: [71]). Believe it to be a sock of User:Monterrosa. -- Winkelvi 03:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked as a sock. Tiptoety talk 14:02, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:109.125.39.86 reported by User:Marek69 (Result: Block, protection.)[edit]

Page
Pope John Paul II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
109.125.39.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606046843 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
  2. 15:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606043939 by Mike Rosoft (talk) "Gay rights" is a loaded phrase used by the homosexual lobby."
  3. 15:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606041934 by Mike Rosoft (talk)"
  4. 15:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 606041128 by Mike Rosoft (talk) We do not need nuanced homosexual propaganda detracting from a publicly-viewable account of Pope Saint John Paul II"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "added 3RR warning"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP editor ignored 3RR warning and undid ClueBot's edit Marek.69 talk 17:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Another IP editor 109.125.61.167 (in same IP range), continues same edit war [72] & vandalism [73] -- Marek.69 talk 18:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done First IP blocked, page semi-protected for three days.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

User:79.176.152.55 reported by User:DendroNaja (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Black mamba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Snakebite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Venomous snake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
79.176.152.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "reverted back to Materialscientist. The consensus from WP:RS ld50 is around 0.30 mg/kg. the book cited is errouneous see talk page"
  2. 04:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605980197 by DendroNaja (talk) Zug et al is not subcutaneous. 3 sources say LD50 is 0.30. its all in the talk page"
  3. 04:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605987036 by DendroNaja (talk)You should be ashamed of yourself trying to "fix" scientific data to your desires. Black mamba has LD50 of 0.30 mg/kg subcutaneous."
  4. 04:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605987454 by DendroNaja (talk) all the sources say you are wrong, and that zug book is incorrect. all the published sientific sources say LD50 of 0.30. what's wrong with you ?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:22, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Unconstructive editing on Snakebite. (TW)"
  2. 03:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on Venomous snakes. (TW)"
  3. 03:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
  4. 04:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Frequent or mass changes to genres without consensus or reference on Black mamba. (TW)"
  5. 04:55, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism on Black mamba. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The above editor is trying his best to game the system. He has edited much of the black mamba article. and is trying to rewrite (snakebite article, venomous snake article) and erase the scientific consensus on snake venom toxicity in order to support his personal view. it has been elaborated in detail using authoritative sources why he is wrong. he knows he is wrong but he is very invested in his favorite snake79.176.152.55 (talk) 04:39, 27 April 2014 (UTC) This user is known by several admins as a vandal and disruptive edited warrior. He was caught plagiarizing an entire article. Admin Diannaa tried to block him, but due to the type of IP address he's using, it wasn't possible. Dendro†NajaTalk to me! 04:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Three articles semiprotected by various admins. In my opinion the protection could be even longer, like a year. These articles are a constant target for an IP-hopper who has his own theory about poisonous snakes. I've semiprotected Inland Taipan even though it wasn't mentioned in this report. It's getting attention from a different IP from Israel, probably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 00:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:37.74.93.206 reported by User:331dot (Result: Article protected)[edit]

Page
Harold Robles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
37.74.93.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 17:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC) ""
  3. 10:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Harold Robles. (TW)"
  2. 02:43, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism on Harold Robles. (TW)"
  3. 02:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "/* April 2014 */"
  4. 10:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Removal of content, blanking on Harold Robles. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user is continually removing certain information from the article(information that could be perceived as not-so-good for them) but has not posted an explanation or responded to the warnings given. This may be Mr. Robles or a representative. 331dot (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Fully protected one month, on an old version from 23 June 2013 that is free of any BLP concerns. While some mention of his financial irregularities seems proper, there ought to be a consensus reached on the talk page as to the best way of wording that. If a consensus is reached and the IPs won't respect it, semiprotection can be considered. If you need advice on the BLP matter, consider asking at WP:BLPN. EdJohnston (talk) 01:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Erzan reported by User:Widefox (Result: 2 weeks )[edit]

Page
Isambard Kingdom Brunel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Erzan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605935498 by English Bobby (talk)Obsessive vandal that wants to ignore British citizens"
  2. 19:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 605925100 by English Bobby (talk)"
  3. 14:16, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 603853373 by Widefox (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. (several warnings given after last recent block, 3RR warning(s) given for previous recent 3RR block)
  2. Warning before 3RR violation [74] for 3RR on European Union.
  3. 19:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Isambard Kingdom Brunel. (TW)"
  4. 19:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Long term pattern of vandalism. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. (see multiple warnings on usertalk page going back to 2012)
  2. 01:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC) "/* British or English? */ Per sources MOS:IDENTITY - both sides need taking into account, fix markup"
Comments:
  • Within short time after last block (and previous block).
  • (Report delay due to misfiling at UAA for vandalism).
  • Long term disruptive / edit warring on several articles for same issue (bio nationalities, without/against consensus on talk)
  • Refusal to engage in dialogue on own talk page about editing behaviour.
  • Frustrating other editors, who are risk getting warned (3RR) when they revert the disruption. Widefox; talk 11:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
  1. UAA [75]
NOTE: Erzan has continued to vandalize since receiving final warning, which he/she blanked from his/her talk page, and has disregarded (see Dominic Cooper and Isambard Kingdom Brunel). Needs to be blocked. Quis separabit? 22:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Not sure if just a backlog here, or if the disruption would be assessed quicker as a 3RR violation at 3RR. I would have thought ANI is appropriate given this level of long-term disruption. Users may blank their pages WP:BLANKING. Widefox; talk 00:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Widefox; talk 12:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Calvin Harris: Apologised and engaged on editors talk page before and after being reported. Have tried discussing with editors concerned but after being unblocked, no response.
  • Isambard Kingdom Brunel: Have not edited more than 3 times within a 3 week period and have engaged the talk page seeking consensus.
  • Dominic Cooper: Cited several sources for edit, which have been ignored and reverted but realised it was becoming edit war and have since stopped.
  • European Union: Definately no edit warring. Posted propose edit change for over a week, no response despite sending messages on interested users talk page asking for input. Set up a talk page to discuss the proposed edit. No response so implemented my edit. Week later 1 editor disagreed and 1 agreed, so a discussion started. Each one revising one anothers edits without a single complaint of edit warring. A third editor joined, reverted my edit, and claimed my undoing of his/her revert (once) was me editing warring.

I am not a vandal, and have left explanations for my edits and have tried to provide sources to support it my edits. Although not responding on my talk page, have engaged in discussions on editors talk pages and the talk page of the wiki page in question. Some 'frustrated' editors have resort to reporting people before open up a talk page or exhausting other channels of communication. There are also no rules that restrict you from blanking your page after such long a period as far as I am aware. Erzan (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2014 (UTC)