Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive294

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Kadribistrica reported by User:Athenean (Result: blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [1]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [5]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [6]

Comments:
On September 2nd, Kadribistrica added ethnic percentages to the infobox [7]. I removed these [8], explaining my reasoning in the talkpage (see above). Kosovo is under a 1RR restriction. Kadribistrica has since then performed 3 reverts in the last 24 hours and shows no sign of stopping. Not only that, but users are required to discuss each and every revert on the talkpage, which he has only done once. He appears unwilling or unable to abide by the article's restrictions. A block is necessary to prevent further edit-warring, as is a warning of ARBMAC sanctions. Athenean (talk) 17:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours --slakrtalk / 09:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Nyanchoka reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page
Leticia Calderón (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Nyanchoka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680436877 by Philip J Fry (talk)Filmography"
  2. 21:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "This is also correct you can update later"
  3. 21:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680434603 by Philip J Fry (talk)Discuss it first in the talk page or paste them on my page.Am really getting tired with user"
  4. 20:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "This page was recently updated no need to revise it."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Leticia Calderón */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I take the time to update the Filmography of the actress, but obviously Nyanchoka that gives equal, his only reason for reverting is "that is updating the article Leticia Calderón". And I am in fact not preventing that the make their contributions, but because it does not want to accept my contribution?. I have the article Leticia Calderón a year on my watchlist, and I know who is the actress. But I do not understand what happens with Nyanchoka. I leave you a message about this, but the user does not want to understand. Philip J Fry (talk) 22:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

The Philip,J Fry is actually lying about having the page Leticia Calderón on his watchlist.The article was very outdated and it almost took me a whole day constructing it ranging from grammar errors,cited the page had a templete of very few sources.What is actually frustrating me is that this user often makes changes on pages that he does not want anyone to edit.The edit war started early September 10 among other users Philip J Fry inclusive.So I decided to check my watchlist and found what was a page has become a battlefield.On the issue am accused of, I decided to distance myself so that I can make improvements on pages that had minimal attention.Now comes this Philip J Fry who thinks that is always correct.I asked the concerned administrator to also scrutinize User:Philip J Fry behavior on the Leticia Calderón's edit history and see the messages he was leaving me.Nyanchokanyanchy 23:35, 10 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nyanchoka (talkcontribs)
And how you can say that I'm lying?, place that article on my watchlist last year, since I saw this actress in the telenovela "En nombre del amor" last year. And regarding the war's editions, that is a user coming from days ago doing the same thing in other articles, although we are you warned that stop, not want to. And I have not really done anything wrong, simply update the filmography, since clearly missing projects by link and mention some episodes where came the actress. I do not see in that part that interrupted its other editions. Simply don't want to accept my edit, because I like to want to impose your point of view.--Philip J Fry (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week — sock passes WP:DUCK test, too. --slakrtalk / 10:35, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W reported by User:Chewers Meat (Result: Filer indeffed as sock)[edit]

He is sending me this warnings [9], [10] so he is knowing the 3-revert policy, I am not needing no be explaining to him of this. Please look at the reverts.

Page
Demographics of Uttar Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Thomas.W (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to

Please also look at:

Page
Uttar Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

When I was getting the messages I did self-revert, look.

Now please take note of the following:

He is accusing me of being a sockpuppet and I agree to an investigation to prove I am not. While nothing is being proven, he cannot say he is "reverting sock". Thomas W is in breach of policy, full stop. Chewers Meat (talk) 10:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A: the first edit claimed to be a revert was me updating the article with the recently released latest census data, not a revert of anyone's edits...
B: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Evlekis where the evidence has been presented.
C: as you can clearly see in the page history of Uttar Pradesh and Demographics of Uttar Pradesh I haven't reverted Chewers Meat because I suspect them of being a sock but because they have repeatedly replaced the latest official government data (from Census 2011) with older and/or unreliable sources, with bogus edit summaries such as "unsourced, unfounded", and continued doing so even after I told them why they should stop. Thomas.W talk 10:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Both "first edits" involved removing information and are as such "reverts". Thomas W is an experienced enough editor and one who we see is heavily involved in "policy issues" so I beg of the admins please do not fall for his pretending to be "ignorant" and he is still at this point in time in a situation to be reverting himself on Demographics of Uttar Pradesh. This is not the page for me to be defending myself from claims of sockpuppetry. And his claim of the "right version" in his "C" explanation does not place him above policy of WP:3RR, he is in breach and he refuses to self-revert. full stop. Chewers Meat (talk) 10:49, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Updating articles with the latest census data as it is being released, as I did when I replaced the older data directly sourced to or derived from Census 2001 with data sourced to the official Census 2011 web site, is normal article maintenance, not edit-warring. But repeatedly removing the updated information, as you did, is. Thomas.W talk 10:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Chewers Meat indefinitely as sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Graemp reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )[edit]

Page: United Kingdom general election, 1955 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Graemp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [11]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [12]
  2. [13]
  3. [14]

(today)

  1. [15]
  2. [16]
  3. [17]

(August)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [18] (already removed from talk page by Graemp)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [19]

Comments:
Graemp is simply trying to frustrate routine NFCC enforcement. The article mentions the person depicted in the image only in passing; the main point it illustrates, that Clement Davies was the leader of the Liberal Party in this election, is so plainly conveyed by text alone that it is hard to see how a reasonable editor could argue otherwise. I've cleaned up scores of infoboxes with similar NFCC failures, and none have proved controversial before )despite the occasional recalcitrant editor who's ended up blocked). Graemp is taking the position that a nonfree image can be used to identify a deceased person in any article which mentions that person, which is hopelessly inconsistent with governing NFC policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz overlooked referencing the discussion that I initiated on his talkpage here, which is is easier to follow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz#File:Clement_Davies_c1955.jpg
The infobox is a standard infobox that is designed to host the pictures of contextually significant people to the article. I did not put the infobox in this article, merely placed the image into the available space. I am not arguing anything about the use of non free images, merely arguing that this image is being used validly. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz has been persistently deleting this image on one occasion because there was no fair use rationale when in fact there was one. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz was only moved to go to the article talkpage after I had opened a full discusion on his talkpage. Graemp (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Graemp is not telling the truth here, and doing so so crudely and blatantly that their good faith must be questioned. I posted to the article talk page at 17:03 [20]. I posted to Graemp's talk page at 17:09 [21]. Rather than responding to my posts directly, Graemp posted to my talk page several minutes later, at 17:14 [22]. Even if, in Graempworld, 17:03 comes "after" 17:14, that's not the world reasonable editors live in. Trying to muddle the watersw like this in order to prevent NFCC violations from being removed it itself disruptive behavior. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

@Graemp: So what are you going to do now? Please keep in mind that technically speaking, we typically err on the side of caution with it comes to copyright issues. Do you intend to continue edit warring? @Graemp and Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Are you both aware we have a noticeboard dedicated to issues like this, as well as an actual process for deleting files where people can give input? --slakrtalk / 10:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Of course I'm aware. I've also been doing NFCC enforcement for years, and have cleaned up scores if not hundreds of similar violations. I don't believe a single one has proved controversial before. For good reason, as this is an open-and-shut matter. There's no reason to take settled matter to an overcrowded, backlogged noticeboard. Graemp hasn't provided any policy-based justification for including the nonfree image -- the existence of an infobox doesn't itself justify placing a nonfree image in it; that argument is so preposterous that I've never seen it advanced before. Good faith disputes are one thing, but here we simply have an editor trying to frustrate NFCC enforcement by repreated and tendentious obstructionism. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Trumpetrep reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Trumpetrep and Drmargi blocked)[edit]

Page: Mr. Robot (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Trumpetrep (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [23]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [24]
  2. [25]
  3. [26]
  4. [27]
  5. [28]
  6. [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user has then gone on to show their low level of maturity by attempting to display the same edit-warring on my own talk page after I've reverted to STATUSQUO, and then once I've removed it, has gone on to continuously revert it to display once more. The user has been reverted on the main article by other users previously, though this didn't stop them at all. Alex|The|Whovian 02:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The article in question, Mr. Robot (TV series), is a derivative work based on David Fincher's 1999 film Fight Club. This fact has been widely commented on by critics at every level, from bloggers and message board users, to mainstream critics at major media outlets like Vanity Fair. It has become such a prevalent mode of commenting on the show, that it warranted its own section in the article. I created a succinct, well-sourced section which documented the parallels between the two artworks. Most importantly, I provided a substantial quote from the creator of the series explaining that he deliberately modeled the show on Fight Club, and he is proud of that fact.
If Fincher's movie were merely a model for the show, it might merit a mention in a sentence or two. However, comparing the show to Fight Club has become a standard way for critics to engage with the show. Therefore, a somewhat broader explanation was warranted.
After the first deletion of this section, which made spurious claims of original research and improper synthesis. I reverted to the original version and responded to the charges on the Talk page. I immediately asked other editors for a consensus on the matter. Alex The Whovian and another editor ignored this plea for consensus, and kept deleting the section with objections that moved beyond the original ones, which had been disproven, to the tautological 3x revision rule. As I undid their edits, I realized that I was breaking a rather big rule around Wikipedia, and I apologize for that. However, my rationale was to call their attention to the discussion on the Talk page and to engage them in a search for consensus. Their unwillingness to reach consensus on this point is actually the bigger no-no at Wikipedia, as far as I understand the guidelines.
My edits have been done in good faith. I don't think the same can be said for theirs. Both of their talk pages have sections on Mr. Robot with users complaining about their heavy-handed tactics on the page. See: User_talk:Drmargi/Archive_5#Mr._Robot and User_talk:AlexTheWhovian#Mr._Robot. Moreover, on the substance of the matter, no one can claim that the section that I created was poorly sourced, represented original research, or did not belong in an article about a work that explicitly derives from a previous work. This is standard encyclopedic material that should be included in the article. Trumpetrep (talk) 02:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The editor has been reverted by three editors, and is unwilling to stop reverting. He does not see the difference between his long-winded, synthetic analysis of the one influence on an element of the show being drawn from a film and the discussion of a film adapting a piece of classic literature. Moreover, the piece has a strong WP:POV slant. It's too long, too biased, and makes too much of the discussion of an influence, one of many, the producer has acknowledged. It's content for the Mr. Robot wiki, maybe, but not here. --Drmargi (talk) 02:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The assertion of a strong POV is incorrect on the face of the original language of the section, which is archived on the article's talk page. Drmargi demonstrably misread the section, attributing words to me that were direct quotes from the creator of the show. It seems that both Drmargi and AlextheWhovian have been overly hasty in their efforts to purge this page of any material related to its primary source material.Trumpetrep (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Trumpetrep and Drmargi 48 hours each.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The blocking of Drmargi is exceptionally unfair on him. He was merely following the rules, guidelines and policies for consensus and material on articles. If the block is required, there is certainly no need to make it the same length of time as the original troublesome editor. Alex|The|Whovian 04:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
The blocking of Drmargi was exceptionally in line with WP:3RR, the exemptions to which are objective and explicit. Swarm 05:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hillandrew reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked 36 hours)[edit]

Page
MxPx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Hillandrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
  2. 21:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
  3. 22:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
  4. 02:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
  5. 17:28, 10 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
  6. 18:12, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "/* Discography */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on MxPx. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Edit warring over this content for six days (since 2015-09-05). Two experienced editors reverting. Argument: the band doesn't see the two albums as "studio albums" while Wikipedia guidelines indicate that they should be considered studio albums. Not sure if locking the page will prevent the editor from continuing the war or if a block is in order. I will let the admin decide. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours Swarm 05:04, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Boyconga278 reported by User:Qed237 (Result: Not blocked)[edit]

Page
Vietnam national beach soccer team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Boyconga278 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1.55.47.198 (talk) to last revision by Boyconga278. (TW)"
  2. 10:11, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 1.55.47.198 (talk) to last revision by Boyconga278. (TW)"
  3. 00:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC) "Reverted 1 edit by 42.115.180.176 (talk) to last revision by Marchjuly. (TW)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:00, 7 September 2015 (UTC) (for edit warring on article 2018 FIFA World Cup qualification (CONMEBOL))
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This editor accuses others for vandalism, without it being vandalism and he has been warned many times for that and edit warring, but he keeps on in the same pattern. I am very concerned about this editors WP:COMPETENCE and his Englsih does not seem good enough to communicate. Qed237 (talk) 16:26, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I have many more examples and diffs of his edit wars and bad edits if needed. Qed237 (talk) 16:33, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry admin, I promised I'd quit dispute on article / 3RR warning. Boyconga278 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked due to the lack of 3RR vio and promise to stop. Consider this a formal warning that we will most likely not let future edit warring slide so easily. Swarm 05:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Burst of unj reported by User:Robofish (Result: )[edit]

Page: Alan Kurdi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Burst of unj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]
  5. Another revert by the same user on the same article concerning different material, also within 24 hours: [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] (not by me but by another user)

Comments:

This user appears to have disruptive intentions towards this article: after his changes have been repeatedly reverted, he has nominated it for deletion and created a WP:POVFORK, Photographs of Alan Kurdi, which is itself up for AFD. Robofish (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


  • Comment I'm wondering if a topic ban may be in order. User:Burst of unj is a single-purpose editor; last time I checked he'd made no edits outside of this topic. He's highly combative and borders on harassing editors who disagree with him. Now that the AFD has been closed, appropriately as keep, User:Burst of unj will either disappear or will continue to push his POV in the article. Obviously we will have to wait and see but those of us with the article on watch list should keep track of his edits. freshacconci talk to me 17:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Block - I've come to agree with other editors. This user seems to only care about disruption, making many unhelpful actions without any sign of stopping. A block is in order. I'd also like to point out that the user is additionally being discussed here. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:45, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

User:CFCF reported by User:Ozzie10aaaa (Result: Warnings)[edit]

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

  • this is not the first time this has happened [41] has behavior of this on another occasion


the diffs below are from yesterday and today another article(2 more happened while here...with no explanation)...here I ask to take to talk page[42]


Attempt to resolve ....(no response to either attempt)


  • notified [49]...and individual erased notification from page [50]


  • has shown this behavior on other articles (with other editors)[51][52]
  • here another ediror describes behavior on another article[53] was just going to give CFCF a formal notice for edit-warring at The Pirate Bay. Given he's been edit-warring at other articles as well, I think this needs close scrutiny in case it is a general problem
I believe he was warned re PirateBay and several other articles. You won't notice by looking at his Talk because he always deletes warnings, often accusing the warner of vandalizing his Talk page. Objective3000 (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


  • on that edit it has 4 books , and 1 journal for description ([55]...if the individual had a problem with any book then it should have been placed on the talk page...it is for this reason as well as the same behavior on a prior occasion[56]and on other articles/editors [57] was just going to give CFCF a formal notice for edit-warring at The Pirate Bay. Given he's been edit-warring at other articles as well, I think this needs close scrutiny in case it is a general problem I am asking for a block or warning for myself as well as other editors who have not spoken up...thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • refer to prior answer and other editors that have complained...thank you(BTW are you an administrator?)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:10, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Your prior answer does not address my question. You did not confirm or deny if you restored any MEDRS violations. We can go through every source. Is this source you restored a primarily source or a review? QuackGuru (talk) 18:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • please refer to last few sentences--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • Your prior statements did not answer the specific question. Like I said, we can go through each individual source. Is this source a primary source or a review? Do you think the source is MEDRS compliant? QuackGuru (talk) 18:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • please refer to last few sentences--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (I am repositioning my answer because I do not believe an individual who has been blocked 12 times should engage in this discussion)
  • please note Quackguru who asks the questions has been blocked about 12 times[58] ....and again I would refer you to prior answer....thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • for the record I'm waiting for an administrator ,,,thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)



  • (unfortunately until an administrator shows up I have to answer this so I'm simply repeating please if any administrator would please look at my complaint I would appreciate it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


      • please note Quackguru who asks the questions has been blocked about 12 times[60] ....and again I would refer you to prior answer....thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • for the record I'm waiting for an administrator ,,,it goes without saying we all use Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • (unfortunately until an administrator shows up I have to answer this so I'm simply repeating please if any administrator would please look at my complaint I would appreciate it( whether a block 24 hours or warning for 3RR)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • There are not so many admins as there used to be. I suggest that this back and forth is not useful. Objective3000 (talk) 19:43, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
agreed--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Please don't hide the evidence, including the evidence of canvassing. There are also concerns of you using primary sources. QuackGuru (talk) 20:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • it is a repetition as Objection3000 indicated above (back and forth) is not useful please take his advice.....--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
    • please note Quackguru who asks the questions has been blocked about 12 times[61] ....and again I would refer you to prior answer....thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • for the record I'm waiting for an administrator ,,,it goes without saying we all use Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Note: Left a note at ANI here.--TMCk (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
  • This is a poorly argued and then messed up request. I find this unfortunate as the subject of the complaint has edit-warred on so many articles, so many times, and needs to be reined it. I say this because I believe he can be a valuable editor. But, he doesn’t appear to want to collaborate in any sense of the word. In one case, he reverted seven times all attempts to fix an WP:ELBURDEN violation during an RfC, including reverts of at least one (I think two) admins, all the while claiming that all the other editors were edit-warring; but somehow he wasn’t. That’s but one example. Days ago, he reverted all my attempts to remove an unsourced blatant falsehood, again claiming I’m edit-warring; but he isn’t, and threatening me. All the while refusing to discuss. Minor case – but one of so many and a pattern of declaring ownership of articles. You won’t find all the edit-warring warnings on his Talk Page, because he removes them claiming they are vandalism and, at times, threatening the editors that post them. Indeed, he deleted the notification of this complaint. I know that I have not framed this statement with refs, et.al. But, I, and other editors, have lives, and simply do not have the time to deal with people like this. IMHO, he needs an understanding that we all have opinions; but we all also operate under the same rules and need to respect one another to forward the project as a whole. Frankly, a 24hr rip will convince him of nothing. Objective3000 (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
It's unclear whether User:CFCF was properly notified of this report. (The 3RR alert was placed on his talk before anything was added to AN3). I've studied the edit history of some of these articles. I didn't see any 3RR violations but there have been a series of borderline cases. There is a pattern of tenacious reverting that causes concern. I've left a more explicit notice on CFCF's talk page and hope that he will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed concern at editing patterns at [62], [63], [64], [65] – with seemingly no improvement. He's been asked to stop adding: images with irrelevant captions, poor sources and drive-by tags (often {{mcn}} after each sentence with one edit/tag) by a number of editors with no change. I reverted the additions on account they were poor quality and used both old and primary sources as well as inserting falsehoods or misinterpretations of source.
Reverts on the Pirate bay article were made over a period of several months–see the RfC on that talk page. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


EdJohnston...the refs (answered below) really are not reverts, one was taken to Doc James by me, the other, eventually agreed, the other was about "edit count",,,and the other is CFCF again.

  • the first ref is the same individual that I am complaining about?
  • the second ref on my talk page which the editor is ...was in regard to edit count...not reversions
  • the third ref is talk page med to which i answered this on Doc James page[66]....Doc James
  • the fourth ref was answered as follows[67]... the person agreed with me....
  • I however do echo your concern ...have been a series of borderline cases. There is a pattern of tenacious reverting that causes concern. I've left a more explicit notice on CFCF's talk ....(24 hour/ or warning) what ever you decide--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:01, 12 September 2015 (UTC)



  • (BTW)...this is another article Planned parenthood 2015 Undercover video(that is 4 reverts /24 hours...I do not edit this article,,,however it is an example)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • [68]..revert
  • [69]..revert
  • [70]..revert
  • [71]..revert


  • (Also BTW)...another article/editor..--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • . In one case, he reverted seven times all attempts to fix an WP:ELBURDEN violation during an RfC, including reverts of at least one (I think two) admins, all the while claiming that all the other editors were edit-warring; but somehow he wasn’t. That’s but one example. Days ago, he reverted all my attempts to remove an unsourced blatant falsehood, again claiming I’m edit-warring; but he isn’t, and threatening me. All the while refusing to discuss. Minor case – but one of so many and a pattern [72]
I have looks at Fat embolism. Simply put the article needs work. You two need to find a recent high quality review in a major journal and work to summarize it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Result: The parties who've been reverting at Hypocalcaemia and Fat embolism are warned not to continue without a talk page consensus. When people fight over medical content, you have to assume that at least the issues are important. But The Pirate Bay and Paul Signac are not medical, and CFCF has engaged in revert wars there. I'm having trouble seeing the need for User:CFCF to make nine reverts at Paul Signac between August 4 and September 2. If you think someone is inappropriately making changes while an RfC is running, report it to admins immediately. A relentless pattern of reverting over many weeks just makes you look stubborn. EdJohnston (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • fair enough ...I thank you for pointing out CFCF (behavior)in your last three sentences of the result, ( should the pattern resume your opinion as an administrator is very valuable, thank you again, --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
He continues his tendentious behavior on the Pirate Bay article. It will not stop. Objective3000 (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User:RobinHammon reported by User:My name is not dave (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Labour Party (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
RobinHammon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "The leader of a party and the members of that party *define* what the party is. 60% voted for a radical left winger. They have the ultimate last word. Stop changing it to something everyone disagrees with."
  2. 13:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "This is what everyone thinks. Ask Jeremy Corbyn if Labour is left wing or not."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC) to 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
    1. 12:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680672455 by Dnm (talk)"
    2. 12:41, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680672545 by Dnm (talk)"
  4. 12:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680672319 by Dnm (talk)"
  5. 12:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Jeremy Corbyn is radically left wing, now the leader of Labour. To say Labour is "centre-left" is quite frankly a joke."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 13:31, 12 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has been pushing the idea that the Labour Party is now suddenly left-wing as the left-wing MP, Jeremy Corbyn, has been elected to the leadership. Dnm (talk · contribs) has also broken 3RR on this page. My name isnotdave (talk/contribs) 13:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hoursEdJohnston (talk) 02:43, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

User:MichaelAdamSmith reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: Indeffed)[edit]

Page
Nova Science Publishers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
MichaelAdamSmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680892204 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
  2. 21:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680890042 by Vrac (talk)"
  3. 20:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 680887803 by Nomoskedasticity (talk)"
  4. 20:51, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "In the cases of public domain material, NOVA always indicates the sources. You can request a book copy to find out."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:29, 13 September 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Nova Science Publishers. (TW)"
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
[73]

Some kind of game is being played, SPA IP asking for lawyers on talk page. Vrac (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

In addition to the obvious edit-warring, there's also COI here... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Note that we had a similar situation with COI user on same article a couple of weeks ago. Link to 3RR case. Vrac (talk) 23:07, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Headtransplant reported by User:ToonLucas22 (Result: Closed)[edit]

Page
Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Headtransplant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "see talk"
  2. 01:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
  3. 01:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
  4. 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "hi, give me some time to edit this page please. per {{underconstruction}} thanks!"
  5. 02:00, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "hi, give me some time to edit this page please. per {{underconstruction}} thanks!"
  6. 02:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "please see your talk page, thank you. Undid revision 680921743 by JJMC89 (talk)"
  7. 02:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
  8. Consecutive edits made from 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) to 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
    1. 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
    2. 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC) ""
  9. 02:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC) "please give me time to edit the page, per {{underconstruction}} thank you."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Blatant violation of 3RR even after being warned. Makes changes without consensus. TL22 (talk) 02:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I am attempting to boldly overhaul the page, and despite {{underconstruction}} template, I continue to be reverted.
If I was an established editor on wikipedia, this would never happen. But since my user name and talk page is new, I cannot edit this page without constant reversion.
The irony is this edit dispute is on the Article Rescue Squadron page, and this edit war behavior by editors is the reason why the Article Rescue Squadron exists in the first place. Headtransplant (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
It should be noted that the Headtransplant account's only other editing history consists of creating an unsourced stub article, reading in full "The Hypomanic Edge is a book by John D. Gartner.", and in adding a 'see also' Wikilink to the 'article'. This is clearly someone who doesn't understand how Wikipedia works, and shouldn't be messing around with Rescue Squadron instruction pages. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
And even after being brought to this notice board, the edit-warring continues: [74] If this isn't trolling, it is a competence issue... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Good point, Andy. The reported user should be indeffed per WP:NOTHERE. --TL22 (talk) 02:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I attempted a dialogue numerous times with these editors, asking them repeatedly to just give me an hour to edit the article, per template:underconstruction. See the edit history of the page.
We are talking about an obscure policy page.
If I was an established editor with numerous edits here, this never would have happened.
In response to me arguing against this 3RR, User:ToonLucas22 escalated this disagreement by WP:stalking my edits, and putting up my template for deletion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_14#Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article.
User:ToonLucas22 is now calling for me to be indefinitely blocked.
  1. No civil dialogue,
  2. a steadfast refusal to give me just an hour to edit a page,
  3. edit warring,
  4. threats,
  5. Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_14#Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article retributive deletion requests, and now
  6. calls for me to be banned indefinitely.
Headtransplant (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The claim of a 'dialog' is demonstrably false - see the lack of it in Headtransplant's editing history. What we have here is a contributor who refuses to comply with a simple request to get prior consensus before making fundamental changes to an instruction page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
(and see also the related thread below 'User:JJMC89 reported by User:SuperCarnivore591') AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Just because you know the passive aggressive way to edit war, does not make your behavior any less justifiable.
You started this Andy. A minor edit war, and now you are calling for me to be blocked indefinitely.
Headtransplant (talk) 03:19, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Headtransplant, WP:BOLD does not apply after editors have reverted your edits. We certainly encourage you to be bold in introducing changes to benefit the wiki, but when there's disagreement about whether they actually benefit the wiki, you need to follow the bold, revert, discuss cycle and talk out the problems with editors before continuing your changes. The fact that the page was "under construction" doesn't give you the right to unilaterally introduce changes to a wikiproject's main operating procedures. Consensus is needed for such large changes before you carry them out, but especially when someone opposes the change. Can you see where you went wrong here, and do you have a plan on how to act in this situation going forward? ~ RobTalk 03:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Rob: I see that you also supported my template for deletion.
Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 September 14
Again, underneath the quoting of policy is extremely passive aggressive behavior.
You will aggressively support the deletion of a template that was barely made. There is policy about this too. You all never gave me a chance to create what I wanted to create.
Of course, Rob, you will call my behavior wrong, but will you ignore the 3RR violations of the editor below?
WP:BOLD applies. I attempted to tell this to User:AndyTheGrump and he was adment about not even giving me an hour of time to edit the article.
I can quote policy too, What about WP:BITE, WP:NEWBIE or WP:CIVIL?
And of course, you ignore template:underconstruction.
I am not going to get in a protracted policy argument with you.
Your like an aggressive pastor, you know the Bible like the back of your hand, and you selectively call sinners to repentance with your amazing ability to quote scripture, but that doesn't make the pastor any less passive aggressive.
Headtransplant (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
'Newbie'? Yeah, right... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Would you like to discuss WP:CIVIL and WP:Sockpuppets now Andy?
Also, I have had over 200,000 edits to wikis. Mostly to wikia.
I host my own 20 wikis.
What about Wikipedia:Assume good faith? Again, you created this edit war. You refuse to compromise, you call for my indefinite ban, you delete my comments on your talk page. Multiple violations of WP:CIVIL and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Headtransplant (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok. I will bite. Lets play the policy game:
Wikipedia:Negotiation and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution:
Talking to other parties is not a mere formality, but an integral part of writing the encyclopedia. Discussing heatedly or poorly – or not at all – will make other editors less sympathetic to your position, and prevent you from effectively using later stages in dispute resolution.
Andy violated Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
WP:stalking
By putting up my template for deletion, User:ToonLucas22 and Andy violated WP:stalking. Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.
Headtransplant (talk) 03:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
"Andy violated Wikipedia:Dispute resolution"! This is getting more comical by the minute. I violate policy by asking Headtransplant to discuss changes before making them... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
User:AndyTheGrump started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and User:AndyTheGrump's response:
User:Headtransplant: "give me a little bit of time to edit Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list please. thank you. 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)" [75]
User:AndyTheGrump: "No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Wikipedia works first, and then suggest improvements on the talk page." 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [76]
Headtransplant (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Headtransplant (talk) 04:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
As been amply demonstrated, you don't have a clue what you are doing - or are under the impression that rules only apply to other people. I suggested you discuss changes - you didn't. And now you are being held accountable for your refusal. Stop whinging like a four-year-old and accept responsibility for your behaviour. Or toddle off back to your personal Wiki's where you can safely be ignored... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:14, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
User:AndyTheGrump started this edit war. Here is my comment on his talk page, and User:AndyTheGrump's response:
User:Headtransplant: "give me a little bit of time to edit Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list please. thank you. Headtransplant (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2015 (UTC)" [77]
User:AndyTheGrump: No. Leave it alone - you clearly don't have a clue what you are doing. find out how Wikipedia works first, and then suggest improvements on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC) [78]
Headtransplant (talk) 03:41, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. This is now closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:JJMC89 reported by User:SuperCarnivore591 (Result: Closed)[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron - Rescue list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JJMC89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [79]
  2. [80]
  3. [81]
  4. [82]
  5. [83]

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


Comments:

This also appears to be a misuse of rollback as well, as the other editor's edits aren't clearly vandalism. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC) -->

Stale report, JJMC stopped reverting 40 minutes ago, which is a considerable amount of time. --TL22 (talk) 02:50, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Edit warring is still edit warring. Five reverts, all within 24 hours, a clear breach of WP:3RR. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 02:53, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I actually agree with that. I was gonna warn but they seem to have stopped. An administrator still needs to review this behavior, though. --TL22 (talk) 02:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
For the context, see 'User:Headtransplant reported by User:ToonLucas22' above - we have a new account messing around with an instruction page - and if it isn't simple trolling, it is a competence issue. Either way, removing instructions from the page is entirely inappropriate, and if reverting it isn't an exception under WP:3RR, it should be. There is far too much potential for mischief otherwise. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
I see.
AndyTheGrump and ToonLucas22 support SuperCarnivore591 violating 3RR but not me.
Again, I have attempted to boldly edit the article, an obscure policy article that instructions have not been edited in months, maybe years, using the under construction template
In response, AndyTheGrump, ToonLucas22, SuperCarnivore591 blatantly ignore the under construction template, even when I ask for one hour to edit an article, template me several times on my talk page, report me to 3RR, put my template for deletion, and delete my talk page comments calling them "worthless".
Again, User:ToonLucas22 escalated this disagreement by WP:stalking my edits, and putting up my template for deletion. Template:Article_Rescue_Squadron_New_article
Headtransplant (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
What are you talking about? "AndyTheGrump and ToonLucas22 support SuperCarnivore591 violating 3RR but not me." Dude, I haven't even edited the article, not once. So how could you say that I'm violating 3RR, and that I'm "blatantly ignor[ing] the under construction template" on an article I haven't even touched? SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:08, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Like I said above, if this isn't trolling, it is a competence issue - Headtransplant repeatedly claims to be 'boldly' editing, but either hasn't read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, has read it but doesn't understand it, or understands it, but refuses to comply with the instruction to discuss after being reverted. And then spams multiple pages with personal attacks. [85][86][87] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
And your solution User:AndyTheGrump is to indefinetly block someone you get into a minor edit war with.
You selectively support the enforcement of 3RR. "Block me" you scream, but don't block SuperCarnivore591.
You started this edit war. I repeatedly ask you to give me some time. I was in the middle of a major edit to the page, and you blatantly refused to give me time.
Yes, I understand the policy.
I also understand that editors like yourself use the policy like a club through passive aggressive behavior.
You started this edit war Andy.
This could have been avoided by you simply civilly discussing my changes. Headtransplant (talk) 03:17, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Dude, I'm pretty sure you're just trolling now, but I've said it before and I'll say it again: There is no valid reason to block me as I haven't been edit warring; I haven't even edited the article once. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hey andy, is calling someone's edits "trolling" a personal attack?
Is calling someones edits "worthless" and deleting them all, a personal attack? Headtransplant (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Andy, is calling someone a troll exempt from WP:No Personal Attack? [88] Headtransplant (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Closed.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki reported by User:SuperCarnivore591 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: X-Men: Apocalypse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hotwiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [89]
  2. [90]
  3. [91]
  4. [92]
  5. [93]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [94]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [95]

Comments:

This user has been blocked for edit warring on X-Men articles before, see here. I started a discussion on the talk page, asking him to get consensus for his changes, but instead he kept reverting, now it's a total of five times. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Although the editor still violated WP:3RR, they reverted only four times, not five. Two of the listed diffs are consecutive edits and count as one revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

User:130.204.142.213 reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Huns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 130.204.142.213 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [96]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [97]
  2. [98]
  3. [99]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [100] (edit summary)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [101]

Comments:

  • Result: Semiprotected six months. This article has been a source of trouble in the past and there is a pattern of IP reverting that goes back for months. Though the latest IP editor may have some good ideas, the place to get support for them is on the talk page. Trying to force your changes in by reverting isn't going to end well. EdJohnston (talk) 03:43, 15 September 2015 (UTC)


User:Oliv0, User:Francis Le français reported by User:D0kkaebi (Result: )[edit]

Page: Popular Republican Union (2007) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Oliv0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Francis Le français (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: After the conclusion of the edit war and ban of User:Francis Le français, I restored the version before discussion

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 4 hours from edit war conclusion, User:Oliv0 restarts the edit war by returning to Francis le Francais' version
  2. Not a day passed after ban of Francis, re-starting the similar changes without discussion he was banned for
  3. To see the previous 3RR discussion and conclusion
  4. User:Francis Le français did not wait the result of this new Edit Warring incident to revert the page to his own version

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I think the previous case of 3RR of 5 days ago and its conclusion is enough explanation

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Please note that a case of personal attacks and threat of outing has been opened against User:Oliv0 and his group. D0kkaebi (talk) 03:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

See my answer there : no threats or attacks from me. My modification was perfectly justified in the edit summary and goes against no dispute resolution, since the WP:AN/3 case mentioned only blocked the one infringing R3R and did not conclude as to which version is "WP:WRONG". Now the last modification by D0kkaebi, falsely stating in its edit summary that my modification had no justification except private attacks and that he is restoring the state of things to the previous resolution of an edit war, undoes my removal of POV in the article, so the question is: should I or somebody else undo it? Oliv0 (talk) 06:26, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
Your diff mentions half a sentence and your comments on the talk page about personal attacks is 4 lines + 20 from your crew. You justified your revert on several topics and summarized by " addition of "gaullism", "centrist" and removal of section about Internet activism certainly goes against NPOV, article improved by undoing this". Just to discuss one claim, Centrism has been extensively discussed on the talk page here and the only undoubtedly neutral user participating in the page, Ravenswing , concluded that the proper translation for English native is "centrist". I did not agree neither as I preferred "syncretic" but since Ravenswing is neutral, I apply his proposal as a proper consensus. I do not understand why your opinion should prevail on previous discussions and consensus reached on the talk page.
By the way, on a side note to admin, User:Francis Le français did not wait the result of this new Edit Warring incident to revert the page to his own version. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:47, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a copy of your answer at WP:AN/I, see mine there: your assertion is false, in the link you mention Ravenswing did not say that "centrist" is a good English word for what the micro-party calls "neither left nor right / above left and right" (that is, focusing on anti-europeanism and not on left-right divisions). Oliv0 (talk) 06:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
So you say Ravenswing did not say "centrist" is the proper word to describe UPR's political positioning? It does not look like you even checked the link. Rather than interpretation, I'll just quote his words "We need pay no attention to what a Frenchman would call "centrist" -- what matters is what your average English-speaker would think of as "centrist".". This is the best evidence that you just impose your POV without even checking prior discussions and even ignoring others' input. I did not agree with him, but I agree on the logic he brought for the sake of the consensus. This is his input. So who is not neutral here? D0kkaebi (talk) 08:30, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This is also a copy of your answer at WP:AN/I (please stop, this is getting off topic), see mine there: here you are being non neutral, Ravenswing only said that the English word is not to be avoided because of the French meaning, which does not say it is the appropriate word in English. In fact, "centrist" and "gaullism" mentioned in my edit summary quoted above and probably even "syncretic" are all a POV attempt at a more positive vocabulary than the sources. Oliv0 (talk) 08:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not off-topic here. Admin needs to understand why you keep reverting and make a war edit supporting the changes of Francis le Francais that had been banished a day for that. If Ravenswing did not think it was the appropriate word, he would not have made this change. It is him who made the change, then I tried to discuss this change as I did not agree that "centrism" would be the proper word. Since I failed to convince him, I accepted the term for the sake of the consensus instead of making an edit war imposing my point of view. You see the difference between me and you? You think you are right and that is not questionable. If someone neutral brings a change, I discuss it calmly. By the way, note that "syncretic" was not my idea neither but a contribution of someone else. I guess everything is said, admins have all info to judge the case. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
So far you did not mention Ravenswing wrote "centrism" in the article, the talk page is more important and does not conclude "centrism". Stick to the independent sources, they do not mention centrism for this party. And the "difference between me and you" is that I am neutral and you are the POV-pusher with a WP:COI as a well-known local official of the party who wants to control the article that you think your WP:OWN, while accusing everybody else to do so. Oliv0 (talk) 05:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: I will have no or little Internet access (in the mountains) for 6 days starting this afternoon. Oliv0 (talk) 08:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
So you finally admit you were wrong to revert without discussion. Yes, I can not mention in the revert summary all the 20 reasons why Francis Le Francais revert is wrong. That is why I keep driving you to the talk page, that you refuse to do and stick to your revert. Refusing the discussion assuming that anyway you are right is a POV and has no justification for Edit warring. I think the case can be judged, everything is said. D0kkaebi (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
D0kkaebi lies (i know it's a strong word) about history and the sources. I demonstrate that on the talk page several times. D0kkaebi don't respect the wikipedia's rules about sources (WP:NEWSBLOG WP:VERIFY etc ) and he tries to have a "false-consensus" on bad source not reliable...
  1. [102] he invites on talk page but his (weak)reponse goes by 4 months after.
  2. [103] [104] he calls vandalism everything !
  3. [105] he protects bad sources
  4. [106] WP:OR
  5. [107] & [108] & [109] POV and addition of bad sources, redundant information, lie ("nearly" say the source named valeurs actuelles, he writes "more" it's a POV lie)
  6. [110] addition of bad sources (one doesn't speak of the subject)
  7. [111] removes a critical source
  8. [112] lie and POV about the source + false explanation cause no consensus on talk/discussion page = second lie
  9. all the same with false explanations that change each time = war edit [113] & [114] & [115] & [116] & [117] & [118] & [119] removes a critical source, canceling [citation needed], addition of bad sources. lies again, "notably" and "one of" are not in the source = POV lie.
All information on PRU talk page. He selects only positive informations about his party (PRU / asselineau) and tries to erase the criticism sources. I think it's a big big conflict of interest.--Francis Le français (talk) 07:59, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, everything was already answered to Francis le Francais, but the answers are always considered weak and/or endless answered with same claim, if it does not valid his point of view. If an Admin needs me to answer point by point to his claim, I can do it upon request. Otherwise, you can just refer to the explanation on the Edit War case where he was blocked for a day. D0kkaebi (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Tell us your diversions sources and the rules of Wikipedia. I assume having been blocked for your reverter versions containing original research, POV and lies. You assume your lies ?--Francis Le français (talk) 10:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

User:Second Dark reported by