Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive256

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Dankonikolic reported by User:WeijiBaikeBianji (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Wisconsin Card Sorting Test (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dankonikolic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 6 June 2014 His first external link insertion, a link to his personal website. [2]
  2. 12 August 2014 spelling correction in the external link by I.P. [3]
  3. 9 September 2014 I.P. edit restoring external links after I removed external links upon review of WP:EL criteria [4]
  4. 10 September 2014 revert of his link using his user name [5]
  5. 11 September 2014 revert of his link using I.P. address (note acknowledgment of previous edit summary) [6]
  6. 11 September 2014 re-addition of comment, under his user name [7]

I don't think any involved editor has yet done more than two reverts in twenty-four hours, but the conduct already appears to be WP:COI edit-warring, and discussion on my user talk page has not yet resolved the issue. Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]

I tried to point the other editor to the Wikipedia guidelines that fit this case through edit summaries and also through a section on my talk page. User_talk:WeijiBaikeBianji#Question

Comments:

I read the professional literature on this topic extensively, and the article got on my watchlist after I added some more further reading references to it. The editor who is promoting his own writings on the topic here on Wikipedia is not a major researcher mentioned in any of the better reliable, secondary sources, and I note he has quite a few notices about problematic edits on his user talk page. I'll turn this over to administrators for now. I will continue to watchlist the article, as most of my editing is about related topics. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 19:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


Dankonikolic comments:

I will gladly give up the link if someone would be kind enough to explain it to me where the problem is. Yes, I understand that this link promotes my work. But also isn't that in some way the goal of Wikipedia? It is certainly not a commercial link as the user WeijiBaikeBianji claimed in his initial edit. It is purely a scientific work.

To remove the link that I have made to my own work, I guess the edit should be somehow biased or one sided. I think it is not. If someone thinks otherwise, please explain it to me. In Wikipedia, I see many links to contents in websites of scientists. What is exactly the problem with my website?

WeijiBaikeBianji did not bother to discuss with me or to put some effort in explaining. I only received a number of inconsistent and not-very-friendly messages. They were inconsistent because each cited a new reason for removing the link, in this order: commercial, conflict of interest, promotion, not a good link. Basically, whenever I tried to argue that the cited problem is not really there, he cited a new problem. This is not a professional way to treat a colleague less versed in Wikipedia.

As to expertise: This is not really relevant here I think, but my expertise in the field exceeds clearly by a large margin that of WeijiBaikeBianji (please see the website to which I am trying to make a link).

As to "quite a few notices about problematic edits": WeijiBaikeBianji must be referring to his own notices.

To conclude, if the link is to be removed, I would appreciate a good, convincing explanation. But, for as much as I can succeed in looking at it impartially, I do not see that the link makes any damage. I think it just provides additional relevant information to an interested reader--as it should.

1) When you joined Wikipedia, you promised not to edit areas where you have WP:COI. 2) When you joined Wikipedia, you promised not to promote any entity. 3) When you joined Wikipedia, you promised to follow the policies, including WP:EL and WP:SPAM. 4) When you joined Wikipedia, you promised to follow WP:CONSENSUS and to follow WP:DR when needed (see WP:BRD). Remember: academics HATE trying to edit Wikipedia because its purpose is 180 degrees from academia, and it frustrates them to no end. the panda ₯’ 20:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for continuing a pattern of promotional editing. He has been linking to his own work since June and I don't think we should wait longer for him to acknowledge our policy. Explanations have been given but not received. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Jytdog reported by User:Blacksun1942 (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [9]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [10]
  2. [11]
  3. [12]
  4. [13]
  5. [14]
  6. [15]
  7. [16]
  8. [17]
  9. [18]
  10. [19]
  11. [20]
  12. [21]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:
Jytdog is a user with an apparently good track record and rollback privileges. Overtagging/ drive-by tagging removed by me due to the lack of any new sections explaining these tags in talk. Jytdog deleted a large amount of good-faith content in the article via multiple edits without any discussion in talk. I believe that Jytdog's edits represent a violation of WP:3RR, which I interpret to be the consecutive removal or undoing of content added by or actions of other editors, and I believe that it is important to consistently and uniformly enforce this rule.

Blacksun1942 (talk) 20:59, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ACK! This is disappointing! First thing to say is that we are discussing on Talk! More detail with difs anon. Jytdog (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Comment. From WP:3RR: "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert." In this case, there were no intervening edits by another user. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
My apologies! I'd not realized that WP:3RR included this stipulation; I'd thought it merely covered multiple edits like the ones mentioned. I humbly apologize to Jytdog for my gross misinterpretation!! Blacksun1942 (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you! Jytdog (talk) 21:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)(edit conflict)Bigger picture. This is not an edit war per se, and I am confused by BlackSun's stance. Let it be said that if others think I edit-warred I will self-revert.

  • 23:55, 10 September 2014 dif A new user, Truyopx came along and removed the tags on an article full of WP:OR with edit note "Redefined and removed ugly banners (frightens away readers))"
  • 00:50, 11 September 2014 dif more experienced user, Jim1138 reverts removal of tags, with edit note "rv not a valid reason for removal of tags"
  • 01:17, 11 September 2014 dif Truyopx reverts, writes huffy note: "Jim1138 did not consider added (referenced) content, deleted changes bc reasons for removing banners were invalid" and leaves huffy note on his/her user page and on the Talk page - is upset that he/she has to discuss things in Wikipedia (imagine!)
  • 01:21, 11 September 2014 I reverted and restored the tags with edit note "DO NOT EDIT WAR. If you are bold and make a change, and are reverted, discuss! see WP:BRD" and also responded on the Talk page and on Truyopx's Talk page, saying that we work by WP:CONSENSUS here.
  • 02:00, 11 September 2014 which led to Truyopx to self revert! (hooray!) and also remove the huffy note from his user page
  • 13:09, 11 September 2014 I thought we were all good, but then Blacksun1942 this dif reverted again! and removed the tags. argh
  • rather than edit war over stupid tags, I went into the article and deleted all the OR crap that the tags were all about. I did it in a series of edits rather than one big slash, because I think big slashing edits are unproductive. Better to several small ones. These are the difs listed above.

I think i pissed off BlackSun on Talk somewhere in here - have not interacted with him/her so am unclear what the driver is here. Disappointing that BlackSun felt the need to raise a fuss - the discussion is continuing there and we are far from done talking. I think what I did was OK but as I wrote above, will self-revert... but I think the article should not be full of OR and not tagged. OK, ready to listen to third parties. 21:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this is done, but I want to add here that immediately after I removed the content, I discussed on Talk in this dif. However in the original post, Blacksun said I did this "without any discussion in talk" which is not true Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, in my overzealous effort to adhere to guidelines, I blindly misinterpreted WP:3RR and needlessly dragged you here, Jytdog. While (as below) the page definitely has outstanding issues, I think I acted inappropriately regarding your edits. Please accept my apology and let me know if there's anything I can do (any edits I can make, etc.) Blacksun1942 (talk) 22:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
apology accepted! thank you for being gracious. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 1 week. With such strong disagreement there is no way forward without discussion. Maybe you can get some help from WP:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
don't know if that is necessary but of course, we will abide. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 22:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


User:82.132.234.87 reported by User:Fungal vexation (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Page
 Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported
82.132.234.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts


Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I took this AIV, but I was directed elsewhere. Fungal vexation (talk) 15:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Page: Walschaerts valve gear (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User talk:82.132.234.87 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Clearing up unsourced content and whole sections from Walschaerts valve gear, Fungal vexation took exception to this and restored the content - still unsourced. He also attacked me on my talk page, alleging that users needed to have accounts to make such changes. I would remind him that this is by constitution the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It restricts what can be added: such as unsourced content, but it does not restrict who can make such changes.

He has attacked me on my user talk page. I removed this, as I am permitted to do so, and he added the same message again. And again. That is simple edit-warring - for which I was thinking about filing at ANEW, except that he came here first. Does he mean my repeated clean up of my user page from his attacks? Or does he mean his re-adding of unsourced content to Walschaerts valve gear?

He has also tried reporting me at WP:AIV [24] but was sent away with a flea in his ear. I wonder where on ANI he will post next? 82.132.234.87 (talk) 15:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked Edit warring with the IP on his or her own talk page is a violation of WP:BLANKING. Removing of un-sourced content is perfectly fine, however I note that one of the paragraphs is referenced to "E.L. Ahrons, "Locomotive and Train working in the latter part of the 19th Century" (Cambridge, UK: Heffer, 1953), Vol. 4 P 122," and the removal of sourced content should not be done without discussion. Regardless, everyone involved needs to read WP:BRD and put an extra emphasis on the D aspect. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Qazolop123 reported by User:TMDrew (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Michael R. Licona (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Qazolop123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Biography */ But the non-Evangelical scholars are not "many" or especially prominent."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Reverts 1: 23:22, August 27, 2014 2: 14:39, September 7, 2014‎ 3: 19:09, September 10, 201

User has been warned, and has not used the talk page. TMD (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  • While they should certainly start using the talk page... three reverts, separated by two weeks, without doing so, isn't something I see as remotely blockable. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation...as noted by Kevin. Wifione Message 16:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Kurlibah reported by AcidSnow (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page: Tourism in Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Somaliland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kurlibah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Somaliland and Tourism in Somaliland

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Tourism of Somaliland:

  1. Revision as of 01:15, 7 September 2014
  2. Revision as of 02:03, 7 September 2014
  3. Revision as of 22:28, 8 September 2014
  4. Revision as of 20:29, 10 September 2014
  5. revision as of 23:34, 11 September 2014

Somaliland:

  1. Revision as of 17:55, 11 August 2014
  1. Revision as of 18:53, 11 August 2014
  1. Revision as of 22:24, 8 September 2014
  1. Revision as of 20:54, 10 September 2014
  1. Revision as of 00:07, 12 September 2014
  1. Revision as of 01:56, 12 September 2014

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here

Comments:

This user has previously refused to go to the talk page despite being warned numerous of times to stop edit waring. He has, however, "attempted" to work out the dispute on the talk page. Though it did not last long as he has now continued to revert. He is currently reverting once per day so he does not back 3RR. He is also been going against consensus on the Somaliland page as well. To wrap this issue up, this user is most like a sock of User:Reer Woqooyi. If not a metapuppet of his which have been popping up for sometime now. AcidSnow (talk) 02:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

First i never did any edits without clearly stated reasons, you are the one who never explained why you refuse. i am the one who invited you here Talk:Tourism in Somaliland and you did not reply to me after my second comment. ironically you have been accusing me since yesterday over 3 times it shows that all you interested is to get rid of me to keep doing/defending anti-somaliland biased edits without having any references to back your claims.in fact you are a stubborn persistent editor who have real identifiable meat and sock puppets, which clearly apears all pages you are involved specially all somaliland and ethiopia pages to boost somalia .Kurlibah (talk) 03:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution.. You could directly go to the DRN if you wish. Leave a note on the talk page of the article when you guys reach a consensus or if other editors weigh in. And yes, stop calling each other socks. Either take the issue to WP:SPI or stop immediately attacking each other. Thanks. Wifione Message 16:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dark Liberty reported by TIAYN (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Scientific Outlook on Development (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Marxism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dark Liberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Scientific Outlook on Development
  • 05:10, 7 September 2014‎. He wrote; "restored to latest version by Dark Liberty. take your Marxist views elsewhere, as far away from non-ideological articles as possible".
  • 05:22, 8 September 2014. He wrote; "Undid revision by TIAYN per WP:COI."
  • 03:08, 9 September 2014‎. This edit was done by him as "104.33.70.80". He wrote; "Compared the previous revisions. I think Dark Liberty's revision is better."
  • 20:56, 9 September 2014‎. He wrote "TIAYN has not provided a valid reason why we should accept his writings which is in direct violation of WP:COI and has accused other editors per WP:don't bite the newcomers. See talk."
  • 21:52, 9 September 2014. He wrote; "Sorry TIAYN, I'm not the one who is pushing a POV. If we used your revision we would have to source all of those statements. Use this version and we can reach a consensus, I'm more than willing to work together."
  • 02:20, 11 September 2014]. Not edit-warring (but trying too readd the controversial new info). He wrote; "removed ambiguous names and pinyin references, clarified content, properly sourced facts without changing the nature of the article."
  • 23:55, 11 September 2014‎. He wrote; "WP:Consensus is not your own opinion."
  • 04:18, 12 September 2014‎ . He wrote; "Colipon's opinion is irrelevant [it is relevant]; there is no controversy, you are [he is] pushing a WP:Fringe view."
  • 05:25, 12 September 2014‎. He reverted the edit of 4idaho (he doesn't have a user page, but active since 2012). He wrote "I will only accept Colipon's revert, TIAYN."
  • 06:51, 12 September 2014. He was reverted by Volunteer Marek. He wrote "warning for Vounteer Marek for improper conduct, and meat-puppetry on behalf of TIAYN, deletion of significant information related to POV edits. LOL."

Comments:

Notice, three users have reverted his edits; me leading with seven, Volunteer Marek with two and 4idaho with one. As for who Colipon is,he was active in the discussions at the article's talk page (see his talk page, appears to not approve of Dark Liberty's edits, or at least, how Dark Liberty is implementing those edits and the tone he uses while discussing with the rest of us). Dark Liberty personally seems to be against editing which doesn't conform to his own worldview; for instance, he claims that the Ideology of the Communist Party of China is POV (which I might admit it is, but thats since I'm not finished with it yet...), but more controversial, he claims its unreferenced (even if he uses the same sources for his editing... For instance at the Marxism article he removed the link, 06:06, 12 September 2014‎, because it was "Article in link is completely unsourced". A quick view of the footnotes used in the article clearly shows thats its referenced by 113 footnotes, and they are from respected scholars.
While, I have no problems accepting some form of punishment myself, I must add that I (and others) reverted Dark Liberty's changes because they; (1) breached consensus, (2) were factual inaccurate, (3) removed all other interpretations of the ideology with the exception of one (that its technocratic), (4) thinks he as the right alone to add or remove information (for instance, he clearly opposes the inclusion of Confucianism even it was the introduction of this concept that the party began talking about Confucian socialism) (4) factual inaccurate and (5) his article is based on WP:SYNTHESIS and on cherry-picking of basic sources (for instance he uses Kerry Brown's article "The Communist Party of China and Ideology", which I used in Ideology of the Communist Party of China, to claim that China and the party are post-ideological when the actual conclusion of the author is that the party has a belief system, has an ideology). At last, I must add (since Dark Liberty accuses me of it); I did not write the present version of the article, and I think its bad but its better then his version, which I like to think says alot. --TIAYN (talk) 07:31, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Purely for 3RR combined with tendentious editing. Wifione Message 16:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Gumpwert1978 reported by User:ColorOfSuffering (Result: )[edit]

Page: Richard O'Dwyer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gumpwert1978 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [28]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

I am trying to resolve an edit conflict, but the user is refusing to engage in discussion and is reverting each edit in the article space. I have reached out across multiple pages, but I have been ignored and am now being accused of "childish vandalism." I simply want to discuss this edit, but all of my attempts at a reasonable discussion have been stymied or ignored. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're right. But unless you devote a section or some commentary to the search engine versus website issue, your viewpoint also seems slanted. It's almost like describing all biographies on Wikipedia as biographies of homo sapiens. That doesn't take away the fact that I'll block User:Gumpwert1978 if he reverts once more without discussing on the talk page. Wifione Message 16:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Very well -- I would gladly add a section about the definition of the website. According to the references I found, his supporters and his lawyer categorized it as a "search engine," while the indictment and the MPAA categorized it as a "linking site." I feel "website" is the proper neutral term, since both parties agree to that broader definition. But I don't imagine this is the proper place to discuss proposed edits; I would just like to have the ability to make edits and discuss changes without them being immediately reverted. I will make another childish effort to bring the party to the discussion table -- thank you for your input. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 17:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Srinu523 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Delta Fast Passenger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Srinu523 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 08:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC) to 09:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
    1. 08:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Time Table */"
    2. 09:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Time Table */"
  2. 21:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC) "/* 57620 (Kacheguda - Rapalle) */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Editing tests on Delta Fast Passenger. (TW)"
  2. 18:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Editing tests on Delta Fast Passenger. (TW)"
  3. 09:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Delta Fast Passenger. (TW)"
  4. 09:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Delta Fast Passenger. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I've reverted as per WP:NTT rule, but the user kept on adding the time tables of train. I have notified him about the rule. Vin09 (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Vin09, I've blocked Srinu523 only to prevent disruption given that the user has broken 3RR and still not responded to any of the warning notes left on his talk page, save his discussion directly with you on your talk page. I'll suggest strongly that you should start discussions on the talk page of the article rather than simply leave edit summaries. You too are on the border of 3RR, so be extremely careful of how you handle your next revert. Wifione Message 17:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Before reading the sumamry I've performed a restoration and later read the summary on this notice page and Self-reverted my own edit, which was done by mistake. Thanks.--Vin09 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Chandra4479 reported by User:Vin09 (Result: Declined)[edit]

Page
Kalyandurg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Chandra4479 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "rm as pwer WP:Unreferenced"
  2. 12:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "History Edited with facts. For more inforamtion, Read "The imperial gazetteer of India"
  3. 19:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 16:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC) "General note: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kalyandurg. (TW)"
  2. 04:12, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Adding original research, including unpublished syntheses of sources on Kalyandurg. (TW)"
  3. 12:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kalyandurg. (TW)"
  4. 12:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Kalyandurg. (TW)"
  5. 12:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Final warning: Vandalism on List of mandals and villages in Guntur district. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

The user gave me the same warning which I gave to him and blanked the page at this page1, page2, page3 because I warned him. Vin09 (talk) 13:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. Open up talk page discussions. Invite the user to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article. Come back here only if the user does not join you in talk page discussions but continues reverting. Wifione Message 17:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:9711CA reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked )[edit]

Page
Will Hayden (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
9711CA (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Juvenile rape charges */There is plenty of consensus on this, it's called the mainstream media, which is public knowledge. Please refrain from reverting, or you will be blocked. I implore you to contact WP admin to further assist."
  2. 16:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625255413 by NatGertler (talk)"
  3. 15:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Juvenile rape charges */ These changes are fully supported by multiple sources in the press/media. Please refrain from further reverts until a WP admin reviews."
  4. 15:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Juvenile rape charges */ reverted back to reliable/credible resources. please refrain from editing until a third-party unbiased WP has reviewed. otherwise these revisions will contiue"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Continuing edit-warring against multiple editors. Has been blocked before for edit-warring. Showing no signs of understanding the concept of 3RR. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 17:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

9711CA has continued to force their version against consensus, even after this report. There have been discussions on the Sons of Guns talk page and on BLPN about this and the consensus was not to use 9711CA's preferred version. They don't care. They have not posted once on a talk page, despite being asked. They do not discuss, just revert. Ravensfire (talk) 17:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Rebuttal

WP admin is encouraged to review these ongoing edits. Censoring information is not WP policy. Edits are well documented with reliable/credible sources. Prior "editing block" is completely irrelevant, since it has no similarity and a great length of time has passed since. Subsequent edits have not been blocked, as it is obvious there is an understanding of WP policies. This "war" appears to be the result of those who may have a like for, or are connected to Will Hayden, thus subjective objections are demonstrated by censoring public knowledge in the media. Again, WP admin are welcome to review and make a determination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 9711CA (talkcontribs) 17:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Ks0stm (TCGE) 17:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Keverich2 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page
2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Keverich2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 07:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625342136 by Darkness Shines (talk) Stop vandalising the page."
  2. 07:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid disruptive edit by Darkness Shines (talk) please do not remove the sourced material"
  3. 06:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625340035 by Volunteer Marek (talk)remove the unsourced statement. Please, try to reach consensus on the talk page"
  4. 06:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "removing unsourced claim (see talk). NYtimes article doesn't mention any 'paramilitaries'."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 07:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 07:30, 13 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Revert, why */ new section"
Comments:
A small group of pro-Ukrainian actists have turned this page into a propaganda piece. Specifically the article used to claim (without proper sources; see talk) that "Chechen paramilitaries" are fighting on the rebel side. I removed this claim, they keep restoring it, even though they can't back it a source.Keverich2 (talk) 08:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week for a combination of edit-warring and personal attacks the panda ₯’ 11:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Romania (Result: Declined)[edit]

Hello, I would like to report User:Nergaal who has reverted an image 3 times on the Romania page. The image depicts the Holocaust which killed something like 5-10% of the country's population. His/her stated reason is that the image shows something that is already mentioned in the article. I have always been under the impression that images should ONLY be used when they visualize something that is already in the article. Anyway, User:Nergaal has far more experience editing than I do and his/her talk page states "ignore all rules" so I really don't know how to address this type of editor or behavior. Please let me know what to do about this. thank you.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg 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. From a quick glance, I don't see any edits all within 24hrs, so until WP:DR is followed, or better filing of the report, I'm not sure what to do the panda ₯’ 11:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
    • @DangerousPanda:Thank you for your reply. The edits were on September 10 at 14:38, September 12 at 11:00 and September 13 at 9:39. I tried to fill out this form but honestly I have no idea how to do this and it is far more complex than what I am used to with wikipedia. Do the 3 reverts all needs to be within 24 hours? I spend most of my time editing and so I'm not very familiar with reporting stuff. Thanks for your help.Monopoly31121993 (talk) 13:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@Monopoly31121993: To meet WP:3RR, all 3 reverts need to be within 24 hours. However, edit-warring can take place at almost any time. For example, if you make an edit (such as inserting an image) and someone reverts it, you are not permitted to re-add it until you have obtained new WP:CONSENSUS for it through discussion on the article talkpage. If you go ahead and re-insert it anyway, you are guilty of edit-warring. WP:BRD helps to discuss that in a very simple, friendly manner the panda ₯’ 15:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • @Mono: there is no such image in the entire article on Germany. And that article is GA. If every article would contain a para AND an image on this subject, then each similar instance would ALSO get a para and an image then wiki would be unreadable. Nergaal (talk) 12:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:RcLd-91 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Ancient Macedonians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
RcLd-91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Prehistoric homeland */ edited the text as explained in the talke page"
  2. 22:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Prehistoric homeland */ i found the section about the origins as it was asked, see i n the talkpage"
  3. 21:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625282937 by Dr.K. (talk) explained on the talkpage."
  4. 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625275026 by Dr.K.source is from "Library of Congress Country Study",has been used as a referenc before here in other articles,took it from another wikipedia page, definetly a reliable source"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 20:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ancient Macedonians. (TWTW)"
  2. 20:05, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Ancient Macedonians. (TWTW)"
  3. 22:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on Ancient Macedonians. (TWTW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 22:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Recent edit-warring */ ce"
Comments:

Keeps adding copyright violations and close paraphrasing to the article in a nonsense sentence. The copyvio sentence is According to a different theory, the ancient Macedonians probably had some Illyrian roots, but their ruling class adopted Greek cultural characteristics from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?frd/cstdy:@field(DOCID+al0014) Seems to have difficulty communicating. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 22:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt the use of an unchanged single sentence like that can be considered a copyright violation. it would be difficult to reword such a concise and specific wording without the meaning being lost. Copyright violations are for large areas of copypasted text. This just seems like a content discussion gone wrong thanks to too many red herrings. The source of the sentence seems unusable, being uncredited (the overall work has named editors, not authors), and the sources it uses also seem unsuitable (just general works and encyclopedias). But the claim being made in the contested sentence actually seems reasonable - so there may be legitimate sources that say it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Bzzzttt....incorrect. Close paraphrasing of anything - even a single sentence - is a copyvio the panda ₯’ 16:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for 3RR violation. The editor added the material five times on 12 September in opposition to others who questioned it. This is an ethnic hot-button article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
@EdJohnston: Thank you Ed. The problem is that just before getting blocked s/he started edit-warring on another hot-button article Epirus (ancient state), adding an anachronistic Albanian definition of a word. The article got protected due to edit-warring by sock IPs from Albania and Romania doing the same edit as this account. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 16:33, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Knowledgesmacker reported by User:Iselilja (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Knowledgesmacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Basically vandalism at this point; shows no interest in ordinary constructive editing. Iselilja (talk) 16:01, 13 September 2014 (UTC)


Comments:

Iselilja is exercising censorship and support of the activities of the Islamic child rape gangs ; shows no interest in pertinent facts reletave to this currently developing situation. Knowledgesmacker (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

User:reverse polish reported by User:Joshua Jonathan (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Page: Higher consciousness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reverse polish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [30]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:


  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked. The user has not reverted after you left a warning note on his talk page. The user has also started discussions on the talk page of the article after the warning. If there is another revert war, come back, otherwise I would not block Reverse polish right now. Jonathan, please also note that you yourself may be blocked for 3RR if you continue reverting without heeding the three revert rule.[32][33][34][35][36]. So be extremely careful from this point onwards. Wifione Message 08:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Oaky. Fair; he did start a discussion. Thanks for the warning; this was dawning on my mind too... I'll take a break now, and do some gardening instead. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:VideoGameHistorian reported by User:Chaheel Riens (Result: blocked, 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Elite (video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: VideoGameHistorian (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] (Edit summary also includes inaccurate accusations)
  4. [41]
  5. [42]
  6. [43]
  7. [44]
  8. [45]
  9. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47] The user has also been warned about their editing here (by me), which they subsequently removed here, and most recently here, by another uninvolved editor.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Elite_(video_game)#VideoGameHistorian_.26_Seminal_edits.

Comments:


Editors argument is that the term "seminal" is subjective and so inappropriate. Multiple editors have disagreed and reverted, including myself who has also shown sources (discredited in the eyes of VGH as "marketing sources") that describe Elite as seminal. VGH has also used bad faith - and inaccurate - accusations in edit summaries ("reverted vandalism of undoing several changes at once without adding specific reasons, also missing edit summary"). Editing behaviour is to not use "revert" but manual edits, and a boiler-plate edit summary. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Also informed HyperspaceCloud of discussion. Chaheel Riens (talk) 10:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hoursC.Fred (talk) 17:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Vanamonde93 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Vidya Bharati (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 12:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625408903 by Kautilya3 (talk) Irrelevant. See WP:ORDER and WP:CITEVAR."
  2. 16:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Three reasons: 1. Follow WP:CITEVAR, No actual 'discussion' on talk page. 2. Also removed wiki-link. 3. The numbers you added are contradicting other source and are much older."
  3. 16:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625538032 by Kautilya3 (talk) Same reason as last time."
  4. 16:51, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 625539204 by Kautilya3 (talk) I have. Please discuss before inserting repeatedly."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* Vidya Bharati */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 16:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC) "/* References */ comment"
  2. 10:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC) on Talk:Vidya Bharati "/* Lede */ new section"
Comments:

Subject seems to believe that WP:CITEVAR is a 3RR exception. Vanamonde93 (talk) 17:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Wifione Message 17:28, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AmritasyaPutra reported by User:Kautilya3 (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

I entered a few Bibliography entries into this page last night, hoping to work on the content this morning using sfn-style references. I then noticed that AmritasyaPutra deleted the Bibliography entries claiming that they were "irrelevant" and referred to some policy pages in the edit summary. I opened a discussion on the talk page about why I am using Bibliography, which he did not participate in. I noticed that he was doing edits of his own. When he was finished, I took his text, converted it to the sfn-style references and added an expanded History section to the page. He kept reverting my contribution, which included not only the Bibliography entries but also the section I added. I then counted the reverts and noticed that I had done 3 and he had done 4.

AmritasyaPutra has been doing a lot of reverts on all the pages he has been involved, including ones I have been involved in. I have been repeatedly begging him to engage in discussions on the Talk page and dispense with trigger-happy reverts. It has been falling on deaf ears. Kautilya3 (talk) 17:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Paolowalter reported by User:Alhanuty (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paolowalter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module:Syrian_Civil_War_detailed_map&direction=prev&oldid=625541627

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [54]
  2. [55]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [56]

Comments:
User Paolowalter has clearly broken the 1RR on the Article,by reverting twice,and and I tried to explain to him the edit and the source i used,but he insisted on reverting me without discussion and User Hannibal agreed on my edit.Alhanuty (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

And also the User has been warned that he have broken the 1RR edit three days ago by an Admin.Alhanuty (talk) 17:48, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

he also made a second revert reverting User Jafar Saeed.Alhanuty (talk) 19:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Wifione Message 19:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Zaid almasri reported by User:WarKosign (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zaid almasri (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [57]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Case one of 1RR violation:

  1. [58]
  2. [59]

Case two of 1RR violation:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]

Diff of edit warring / 31RR warning: [62]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [63]

Comments:
The user constantly pushes a change that undergoes an RfC. It is not closed yet but leans toward not including the change. Here several editors tried to convience the user to cease pushing this change. Here the user promised to continue edit warring as long as it takes for them to win. WarKosign (talk) 19:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User:JacksonRiley reported by User:Denniss (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
Airbus A340 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
JacksonRiley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC) ""
  2. 02:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Ownership of articles on Airbus A340. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Multiple users have reverted his edits but he insists on keeping his view in the article. Multiple warnings for edit warring and article ownership have been ignored, discussion on article talk page didn't help either. After discussion did not support his view he stopped discussion and kept restoring his view over and over. Multiple reverts are not listed here but available in the article history, multiple discussion attempts on the article talk page. --Denniss (talk) 09:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm one of those multiple users. Once JR became aware of the 3RR "bright line" he slowed down his reverts, but it is the same material being inserted once or twice a day instead of three times a day. This is kind of frustrating - obviously we don't want to bite the new editor too much, but when several editors keep on deleting the same material citing policy (WP:WEIGHT, mainly) and we keep on seeing the same stuff put back in day after day, there's a lesson that is not being learnt. Airbus A350 XWB has some of the same sort of behaviour. I'm getting the feeling that this editor has a role in one of the American jet engine companies and knows his material, but he's just not working within the community. --Pete (talk) 10:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

For my part, I've explained my edits and the sources on the Talk page, but Pete always responds with a vague "Synthesis" or "does not match the sources". Pete does not even want to bother finding sources to support his/her position, instead claiming that the article is fine as it is. A central part in my dispute is that I have one sentence attributing the A340 cancellation to the 777-300ER (due to the several sources), and a separate sentence for the A330 (which only has one vague source). The other editors involving in the edit warring, such as Denniss, have not responded on the Talk page. As for Airbus A350 XWB, User:Wolbo was removing sourced material but it was now settled. Lastly, the charge that I work with an American jet engine company is a cheap shot by Pete, as he has been ignoring the references I found to back my contribution. JacksonRiley (talk) 15:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. While I'm foxed at why multiple editors with considerable editing experience are rejecting the Bloomberg reference being provided by JacksonRiley (I must be missing the elephant in the room; please do tell me if it's there), I'm protecting the article until consensus can be worked out on the talk page. Jackson, try dispute resolution; take this to WP:DRN to get more views if you wish; but till you get consensus, your change is not happening, so don't try it or you will be blocked for disruptive editing in the future once the article is unprotected. And please realise that I'm telling this despite believing your Bloomberg reference holds considerable weight. Pete, Skyring, Jackson, et al, come back if you believe consensus has been reached or you need any other additional assistance. Wifione Message 18:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
I have been watching this debate mostly from afar. From that vantage point I think the problem is that many people are uncomfortable with the new additions concentrating on the 777 being the (major?) cause of the A340's cancellation. While this has some grain of of truth, I also believe that it should not be overstated and that user JacksonRiley is pushing a particular POV that is not really supported by the breadth of analysis available. Oil prices, gradual ETOPS extensions, a general and ongoing imporvement in the specifications of all 2 engines aircraft and the "two engines good" "four engines bad" situation that has developed are all generic factors affecting the A340 cancellation decision.
I would prefer the original more neutral text is retained. Andrewgprout (talk) 01:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob.HUN reported by User:Stickee (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rob.HUN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 12:11, 14 September 2014
  2. 16:02, 14 September 2014
  3. 23:06, 14 September 2014
  4. 23:56, 14 September 2014‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:10, 14 September 2014

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [65] [66]

That section on the Talk page IS NOT about the Cause section of the article

Comments:

User was given a softer 3RR warning prior to being reported here. I've now issued a stern warning. I doubt this is going to do much though. Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:14, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I originally gave a stern warning, but didn't want to template the regulars or be too bitey, so I gave a soft 3RR warning. Stickee (talk) 00:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
As soon as those concerned can give a valid reason (instead of mere labeling) for continuously reverting my edit, I'll be more than happy to discuss it on the Talk page.--Rob.HUN (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Acroterion (talk) 02:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:MehulWB and User:BengaliHindu reported by User:Amortias (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Ahmed Hassan Imran (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MehulWB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)BengaliHindu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [67]

Diffs of the user's reverts: MehulWB

  1. [68]
  2. [69]
  3. [70]
  4. [71]
  5. [72]
  6. [73]
  7. [74]
  8. [75]
  9. [76]
  10. [77]
  11. [78]

BengaliHindu

  1. [79]
  2. [80]
  3. [81]
  4. [82]
  5. [83]
  6. [84]
  7. [85]
  8. [86]
  9. [87]
  10. [88]
  11. [89]
  12. [90]
  13. [91]
  14. [92]
  15. [93]
  16. [94]
  17. [95]
  18. [96]
  19. [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98][99]

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

Comments:

I am extremely sorry for unknowingly violating the rules. I promise I won't repeat this. I got the message after undoing the edits by Nirmalya1234 whom I believe is the same person who edited it earlier. I undid the edit as the edits are unproven defamatory statements against an elected MP and editor of a newspaper from another news report by Anandabazar Patrika which is being challenged now in court thus I request the other editor to wait till the verdict or further reports come out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MehulWB (talkcontribs) 18:14, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Result: Article protected two days by User:MusikAnimal. There seems to be a BLP issue about terrorism links per this diff. There has also been a revdel due to copyright violation, though possibly on different material. If reverts continue after protection expires, one or more blocks are possible. If any editors want to argue the BLP issue, consider posting at WP:BLP/N for advice. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob.HUN reported by User:Dusti (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Rob.HUN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts