Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive318

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Hammad.511234 reported by User:Barthateslisa (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Biryani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammad.511234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

The user is persistently adding his POV on the mentioned page, he started it on 16th May, was reverted by others and started again on 29th May. The subject of the page is Biryani, and there is whole section devoted to its origin, but User:Hammad.511234 is keen on adding his POV as a sweeping statement about its origin in the intro para, I invited him on the talk page, told him about his error but the user is too confident about his own theories.

Here is the user first on 16th May and then again on 29th May.

Barthateslisa (talk) 09:54, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Hammad.511234 is warned. If they revert this article again before getting a talk page consensus, or they engage in more personal attacks they may be blocked. In your edit summary you said "The person who changed this really hates the word Muslim." Instead of hating the word Muslim, perhaps the editor you are criticizing just disagrees with your reading of the sources. EdJohnston (talk) 15:22, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

EdJohnston Well I disagree with his vandalizing of my edits. It's been sourced, and it's a fact. Later in the article, he also changed the Turkish and Muslim communities of Macedonia to Turkish communities of Macedonia. Turkish Macedonians, and Muslim Macedonians are two different groups. He also removed the word "Muslim" centres, and made it Mughal centres, when the book that it's sourced from, said Mughal, and Lucknow, hasn't been under Mughal rule for years. Everyone in South Asia knows that only Muslims make Biryani. That's like me saying that Matzoh ball soup originates from Germany, and not the Jews of Germany. Sources used later in the page also support claim, but he wants to put his POVS in the article. His vandalizing of my edits wasn't justified, as the source was completely credible. He reverted all my edits. If you want proof of my statements, than here... http://blogs.hindustantimes.com/rude-hotels/2009/02/01/where-does-biryani-come-from/ "And how did it spread all over India to become the defining dish of nearly every Muslim community?" http://www.dailyo.in/politics/biryani-muslims-racism-stereotyping/story/1/2681.html "Biryani has always been synonymous with the Muslim community in India just as vada pao is to the Marathi cuisine, or idli sambar to the Tamil community, or sarson da saag and makki di roti to the Jat and butter chicken to the Punjabi." http://www.hindustantimes.com/india/everything-you-want-to-know-about-biryani/story-YTHNsrnZm2cQyviBzBLKkJ.html "Nearly everywhere in India, wherever there is a Muslim community, there is a biryani." or how about this book that is sourced many times in the wikipedia page... https://books.google.ca/books?id=cZe-r38DYjcC&pg=PT5&dq=history+of+biryani&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj305vbjYrNAhXnyoMKHQ6FCYwQ6AEIJDAC#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20biryani&f=false "The Indian subcontinent owes a deep debt the the Muslim community, for it is they who introduced the gamut of biryanis and pulaos to us." The person who's been vandalizing my edits clearly has a problem with the word Muslim, as he removed it three times. Why is it that Biryani is found in almost every Muslim community in the Indian subcontinent? That's because every biryani has it's origin among South Asian Muslims, and it's only found in South Asian Muslim cuisine. So idk why I've been reported, when he's been doing wrong. Thank you. Hammad.511234 (talk) 19:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

You are still not getting whats the issue here, its you, who have started pushing your POV, everyone has a POV, but thats not for Wikipedia, its an encyclopedia. You started with POV, first on 16th May, you were reverted by others and then you started again on the 29th and its been a chain since then. Time and again, I have told you there is an origin section for the subject, which is a dish, but no, you have to ignore the section, all of its sourced content and continue with your edits, at least bother to read the section I am pointing. On top of that you are judging me. Just look at the discussion again. Barthateslisa (talk) 14:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: Since User:Hammad.511234 has responded here and continues to repeat the personal attack (that Barthateslisa is anti-Muslim) here at the noticeboard, I'm going ahead with a 48-hour block of Hammad for personal attacks. EdJohnston (talk) 20:14, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hammad.511234 is back after his block and is not cooperating, still not sticking to the talk page and is pushing his POV, time and again I have reminded him about the relevant section on the page, but its as if he has made it a habit of doing it his way, plz intervene. Barthateslisa (talk) 06:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User: Hellchosun reported by User:Jytdog (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff; and their response; "Jytdog! hey don't bother me. Massacre is proper word. Do you really know this dirty evil massacre?? Last chance! don't bother me wiki freak." Jytdog (talk) 10:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Further diff -Roxy the dog™ woof 12:06, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Hellchosun is warned. You may be blocked the next time you revert this article unless you have previously obtained a talk page consensus. You are replacing 'deaths' with the word 'massacre' and a number of people disagree with you. EdJohnston (talk) 15:08, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Niko Toskani reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: No action)[edit]

Page
T.J. Storm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Niko Toskani (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 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) to 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
    1. 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723514224 by FoCuSandLeArN (talk)"
    2. 13:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:49, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723505809 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
  3. 12:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on T.J. Storm. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Result: No action. Only three reverts listed. The article is now deleted as G7 (user requested). User:Niko Toskani should consider using talk pages. EdJohnston (talk) 15:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:82.127.22.47/User:81.64.61.5 reported by User:GabeIglesia (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Visa policy of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.127.22.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) 81.64.61.5 (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]
  4. [5]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

Comments:

Persistent edit warring regarding a contentious addition that violates WP:NOR. Attempts by myself, Twofortnights, and Norvikk to remove the addition continue to be reverted by the aforementioned IP addresses, and extensive discussion has been going on at the article's talk page. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I have also put in a request for a temporary upgrade of the article's protection level. GabeIglesia (talk) 05:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:24.212.206.48 reported by User:Amccann421 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page
Wikipedia:Requested articles/Biography/By profession (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
24.212.206.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723771482 by Amccann421 (talk) 1. Collegiate Star athlete. 2. The rape. 3. The lenient sentencing. 4. Victim impact statement 5. Please let someone less biased weigh in."
  2. 04:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723770833 by Amccann421 (talk) so you need to do 2 rapes to get a wiki page?"
  3. 03:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723766538 by Amccann421 (talk) He's done plenty of things. He's a star collegiate swimmer, a campus rapist, and got an incredibly lenient sentence due to affluenza"
  4. 01:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723749592 by Hoary (talk) The list isn't alphabetical to begin with."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Has been warned in edit summaries and on talk page. Continues to revert and ignore the fact that the proposed article fails WP:BLP1E. Has now called me biased, which is definitely not assuming good faith, and could be seen as a personal attack. Amccann421 (talk) 04:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of the warner/reverters. In very tepid semi-defence of the perp, I'll say that what he insists on adding the name to is a pretty dreadful list, many of which are of nobodies convicted (or merely accused) of this or that crime and notable for nothing else. The target page cries out for radical pruning. -- Hoary (talk) 05:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Result: Semiprotected one month. Any admin who disagrees can lift or modify the protection. The long term question of whether to keep this list around could be a matter for WP:VPP. See the recent comments on the talk page about the quality of the list. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amitashi reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Amitashi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine and refugees."
  2. 18:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine. Cites: The Guardian, NY Times."
  3. 10:17, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Pro-Russian protests."
  4. 07:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protest in Eastern Ukraine (links are provided)."
  5. 07:02, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine. EVIDENCE provided."
  6. 06:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine."
  7. 06:34, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine."
  8. 06:26, 2 June 2016 (UTC) "Reasons of protests in Eastern Ukraine."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. #User:Amitashi_reported_by_User:Wee_Curry_Monster_.28Result:_Blocked.29
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

See recent report at #User:Amitashi_reported_by_User:Wee_Curry_Monster_.28Result:_Blocked.29. User was just released from a block for edit warring. Within 1.5 hours, the user continued an edit dispute on Ukraine. Will add another diff momentarily. Wasn't sure if AIV would be appropriate since under 24 hours since block expired EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Think this is one for WP:ANI. WCMemail 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@Wee Curry Monster: Feel free to copy-paste my diffs or just make a report there if you think that's the better venue. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:36, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 22:34, 4 June 2016 (UTC) My new edit completes peviously logically incompleted paragraph. My previous edits were reverted because of cites. I included new cites and reverted information on refugees that was part of article before my very first edit on it.

I count 5 diffs where you provided sources, so that wasn't the issue. Before your block, Toddy1 reverted you and pointed to the talk page for discussion ([8]). You failed to engage in discussion there and instead re-added the materials after your block expired. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
ANI report filed, I linked to this discussion. WCMemail 22:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2016 (UTC)I admitted Toddy1's criticism on previous cites and added new cites in my new edit. What you doing now is doubling previous report! Details: Before my last edit paragraph was logically incomplete! It began with "Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions...". But that doesn't logically link to anything! So I added centence on protests. Now it is logically commpleted: "Protests... Separately, in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions..." My previous edits on Ukraine were already mentioned in previous report. And I already served my ban sentence for that. Now when I suggested constructive change you want to put me in jail again for sin I already worked out. For admin: I already said that I learned Wikipedia's edit policy and will not do edit warring if will face resistance. I will use Talk page instead. Thus I find OK that I suggested constructive improvement of article. If it will be rejected I will use Talk page.

@Amitashi: The blocks are not simply "jail time" that you serve in exchange for doing something -- they are to stop you from continuing that action. If you keep up the same behavior after a block, it is a lie to say that you've learned from it. WP:Edit warring is not simply a red line that's OK to dance in front of as long as you never cross it -- you need to avoid re-adding material when it is obvious that the consensus is against adding that material. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, it seems you do not understand quality of my actions. As I said my new improvements are essential for logic of article. And as long as I was criticized for cites I replaced them. So it is not warring it is doing what other editors asked me. Amitashi (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Amitashi: by saying "it is not warring," you are only proving that you have learned nothing and know nothing about edit warring. You were given plenty of resistance last time to those edits. You did not seek consensus for those edits, but instead started up again with the same behavior and only went to the talk page after it became clear that you can be blocked for this behavior. I've explained this repeatedly, but you do not seem to be listening at all. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Amitashi (talk) 23:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC):Ian.thomson, no your ban threat doesn't influence my actions. I follow my own strategy by which I use Talk page when I face resistance to my edits. And as I mentioned at your Talk page you deleted more than I added. You deleted other users' contribution on regugees that were presented in article before June 2nd (my entrance). I violated nothing with one edit being in limit of three same edits per day. Also it wasn't same edit as previous because it has new citations and brings essential logical improvement of article.

This is the exact action I took. You are completely wrong, and it is beside the point. The material was removed by Volunteer Marek and again by My very best wishes. To say that I removed it is wrong, and showing you this this evidence it would be a lie for you to ever again say that I removed it.
You don't think that being reverted 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 times is resistance? Why did you ignore that resistance completely? It wasn't a separate and distinct incident, the block does not make that "the past" and unrelated, you continued the same behavior from the previous incident.
The three-revert rule is not a privilege, it is something you need to stay away from. As WP:3RR says "The three-revert rule is a convenient limit for occasions when an edit war is happening fairly quickly, but it is not a definition of "edit warring", and it is perfectly possible to edit war without breaking the three-revert rule, or even coming close to doing so." Once again: you came out of a block and started back with the same behavior that got you blocked. You clearly have not learned anything. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:58, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely by User:Ian.thomson. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Knoterification reported by User:Laser brain (Result: blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Pedro II of Brazil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Knoterification (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]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16], [17]

Comments:

Knoterification has repeatedly inserted text into Pedro II of Brazil indicating that he spoke a "Jewish variant" of a language, always with blogs or other unreliable sources, or papers that don't support the change. Despite being reverted by two different editors, they persist. They have now reverted five times, and have broken 3RR today. --Laser brain (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours John (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:281:8100:4883:D966:B96B:ABE0:7FF6 reported by User:331dot (Result:Full Protection )[edit]

Page
Ultimate (sport) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
2601:281:8100:4883:D966:B96B:ABE0:7FF6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:53, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "WP:PROVEIT"
  2. 18:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723856837 by 331dot (talk) WP:PROVEIT "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliabl"
  3. 18:34, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723729113 by YechezkelZilber (talk) wp:proveit is very very clear on this topic."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ultimate (sport). (TW)"
  2. 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */"
  3. 18:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ultimate (sport). (TW)"
  4. 18:55, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 18:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Blanking */ new section"
  2. 18:35, 5 June 2016 (UTC) on User talk:2601:281:8100:4883:D966:B96B:ABE0:7FF6 "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Ultimate (sport). (TW)"
Comments:

Anon user is repeatedly removing the bulk of the Ultimate (sport) article with only stating WP:PROVEIT and not specifying what it is exactly that they want proven. The section does need references, and I had tagged the page as such, but it was removed- the tag should be given time to work. 331dot (talk) 19:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

An IP with a slightly similar address started this whole process; possibly the same person. [18] I don't want the person blocked as long as they will engage in discussion on the issue and allow time for the tag. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You only showed 3 reverts. You need to show at least 4 reverts for a violation of 3RR. OldTraffordLover (talk) 00:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected There are four reverts including the first edit which reverted the new text out, but you don't have to show 4 for it to be warring, that is just one sign that someone needs a block. In this instance, I chose to instead full protect the article for 2 days while a consensus is built on the talk page and while sources can be found, or shown to not exist. This is a rather silly edit war and blocking seems pointless. Once the protection expires, if it goes back to multiple reverts, there will likely be blocks without getting to 4RR, as a continuation of an edit war. Dennis Brown - 00:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Hosam007 reported by User:Nile_Lover (Result:Filer blocked as obvious sock of someone)[edit]

Page: Sunni Islam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hosam007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user: Hosam007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has violated the three-revert rule by reverting more than three times in a single page in less than 24 hours.


  1. [19]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


  1. [24]

Comments:

Response from Hosam007:

  • Obviously a sock of someone, only edits were here. Dennis Brown - 20:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: These fourfive accounts are the same:

​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@DoRD: If you're not already aware, there are two SPIs regarding this (Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/شامخ بشموخ and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/أحمد المنصورة) that need to be merged and updated with this information. clpo13(talk) 22:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I just saw the latter case, at which my results have been posted. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 22:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Two of those I had checked and was convinced he was one of them, even went to translate the names. Thanks for cleaning up, DoRD. Dennis Brown - 00:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

IP editor reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: Protected)[edit]

This a preventative measure, but there is a transient IP edit who keeps reverting for no good reason. Dapi89 (talk) 15:37, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Dapi has breached WP:OWN with his assertions on my talk page, and will not correct the incorrect translation in the article that he keeps reinserting (even after it has been pointed out several times).2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
This person doesn't understand what that means. The original content editor reserves the right to spell the article and use whatever title they choose. Dapi89 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
And second, can he explain why he does not consider Wehrmacht to mean "German forces"? What other forces could it mean? Dapi89 (talk) 15:42, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The correct translation, as pointed out several times to you despite you ignoring them, is "armed forces". You cannot provide a translation and half ass it like you did. Regardless of your argument, your spelling was challenged and being the original editor has no bearing since you do not own the article.2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
The Wehrmacht refers to the German forces. This is not wrong. Do you understand?
Read WP:RETAIN Dapi89 (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment You both know perfectly well you are both edit-warring over content, with no recourse to the talk-page from either of you. The IP might possibly claim ignorance of policy; but Dapi89 should certainly know better. Muffled Pocketed 15:52, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Wrong. I sent him a message, he ignored it. And you know WP:RETAIN is valid grounds for retaining "World War II". An opinion on that would be better, rather than stating the obvious (edit war). The link he added is wrong (also not in source). Dapi89 (talk) 16:00, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No; I'm right. Sending him a message saying he's 'confused' and continuing the edit-war = not great. Indeed, he replied to it, rather than ignore it, as you say. Anyway. That's me done. Ciao! Muffled Pocketed 16:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
You may say we are both in the wrong and the subject is over, yet Dapi has carried on the dispute and essentially gets go have his own way dispute three pieces of info being brought into dispute.
"German forces" does not translate as Wehrmacht, as Dapi has presented the information in the article. German "armed forces" would be more appropriate in the context (of keeping the translation). Other alternatives include removing the translation, rewording the sentence, or piping "German forces". Two attempts have been tried (rewording and removal), yet Dapi reverts for no other reason than because am an anon (or at least the attitude suggests so). So what, the whole argument has to be rehashed on the talk page where Dapi will no doubt ignore constructive criticism because they feel they own the article? Likewise rehash on the talk page the dispute over using a more British term than American, and what link is more valuable?2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 17:21, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I would also point out that WP:Retain includes a disclaimer of terms that have strong national ties; Second World War has been in use by Brits since said war, that is nearly 80 years of strong ties.2600:1015:B126:631E:7D14:6B4E:50C1:FA72 (talk) 17:23, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – 5 days. It seems that both parties have broken 3RR. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are open to you. The IP has even used the article talk page. If you want to debate general issues such as the best name for the Second World War you might be better off at WT:MILHIST. EdJohnston (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:94.155.238.11 reported by User:Sarbaze naja (Result:Full Protection )[edit]

Page: Volleyball at the 2016 Summer Olympics – Men's qualification (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.155.238.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [25]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [26] (4 June 2016)
  2. [27] (5 June 2016)
  3. [28] (5 June 2016)
  4. [29] (5 June 2016)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:
The IP doesn't engage in talk page of the article to talk about the pictures and doesn't answer me in It's talk page (removes all requests from me!) although I asked It several times in It's talk page and in edit summaries. I want to add more images of the competition but I can't because It remove them frequency!Sarbaze naja (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

May I mention (apart from the fact it's a duplicate report) that Sarbaze's only edits on that article within the previous 12 hours have been reverts to restore a photo gallery. He's done that six times within that period, thus blatantly violating WP:3RR as well as the IP. Minima© (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
But you missed that I invited the other side to debate. But It didn't engage and reverted in silence! Are these two same?!Sarbaze naja (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Pay attention: another revert and without explanation!!! Sarbaze naja (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

User:94.155.238.11 is right. This gallery not needed on that page. Only User:Sarbaze naja wants to add gallery, all other users from that page don't want it. If you will block User:94.155.238.11, then block me too, because I undid gallery too. GAV80 (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't just talk about a gallery. We talk about respecting to rules. If I add a valid information and other user wants delete it, you need a valid reason, not to reverting frequency. The IP doesn't respect rules of the encyclopedia. Also I asked you to join the discussion but you didn't! Now, you are here?! I followed the rules. If you don't want discuss about a problem in a talk page, this is your fault, not me. Here's our court; So, I'm waiting judges, not a devotee. By the way, if you look at the talk page, you can see other supporters. Sarbaze naja (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. The fact is, you are both into 4RR territory. The talk page makes it clear there are some serious and valid concerns about WP:GALLERY at stake and including them isn't as simple as Sarbaze says considering the content doesn't represent the event and there is the question of how does a gallery help the understanding of the event anyway. These are things you have to discuss on the talk page and get consensus for. The IP, on the other hand, refuses to communicate and tempted me to block simply by the bullheadedness of their reverts and unwillingness to discuss. If the IP isn't going to discuss, they need to stop reverting or they will be blocked. See WP:COMMUNICATE. The protection will expire in two days, I suggest not changing anything without a consensus to include because it will not require 4 reverts to block once it expires: if it seems obvious that the warring resumes, the edit warriors will be blocked without warning. Dennis Brown - 01:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Bartheslisa reported by User:Hammad.511234 (Result: Hammad.511234 warned)[edit]

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biryani&oldid=723750333

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Biryani&oldid=723780761

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

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

Comments:

The user has been changing my edits without any valid reason. Biryani is found among the Muslims of the Indian subcontinent, and everyone knows this. There were even have sources down, 4 in fact, and it's necessary to tell people where the dish originates from. The user also changed the word "Muslim" to "Mughal" when the book sourced says Muslim, and Lucknow was free of Mughal rule since 1724, and Awadhi cusine developed it's own unique taste separate from Mughal cusine. Hammad.511234 (talk) 13:46, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

This is in continuation of This report on Administrators' noticeboard above, I lodged a few days ago, after which Hammad.511234 was blocked for making personal attacks. The User is back again and instead of cooperating on the talk page, he is again busy pushing his POV. This is the discussion on the talk page that the user has been asked to engage in again and again, but instead of sticking to it he pushes his choice of the content on the page. He started this on 16th May, he was reverted by other users, he again started with his POV on 29th May. All of this have been mentioned in the earlier complaint on the Administrators' noticeboard Barthateslisa (talk) 13:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Hammad.511234, from what I can see on the talk page, this is a case of WP:IDHT on your part and you appear to be pushing your own reading of the origins of Biryani into the article. You're welcome to take your case to WP:DR but if you continue to push your own views without doing that, you will be blocked again. --regentspark (comment) 14:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

comment How am I pushing my own views? Can you please explain? Was there anything wrong with any of my edits? Hammad.511234 (talk) 14:10, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

In Talk:Biryani#Biryani_Origin your comments are entirely supported by a "because I know it" argument. That's the quintessential example of pushing your own views. Take it to WP:DRN or give it a rest. --regentspark (comment) 14:48, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

regentspark No they're not. I have so much proof. The User has no valid reason to vandalize those edits. And you're not helping either, as you know that the sources I have were also sourced in the page before. Are you saying Biryani is not found among South Asian Muslims? Are you saying that misquoting the book is correct? And yes, I am taking it there, because you're proving injustice. Hammad.511234 (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Taking it to DRN is your best option so you're doing the right thing. --regentspark (comment) 15:14, 5 June 2016 (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. SQLQuery me! 05:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

User:TFBCT1 reported by User:94.5.60.131 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Manohar Aich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TFBCT1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [32]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [33]
  2. [34]
  3. [35]
  4. [36]
  5. [37]
  6. [38]
  7. [39]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [41]

Comments:
While not reverting to the exact version, it is a previous version by that editor with the 1914 year of birth he is bizarrely attached to, no matter now much evidence to the contrary is provided. He keeps making reference to a Youtube video (see article's talk page or edit summary for diff #2), yet ignores me and another editor who repeatedly point out the video is from 2006 and that multiple reliable sources deal with his 100th birthday celebrations in 2012 (obviously making a 1914 year of birth highly problematic) or the large number of sources covering his death that has he was 104 (again, making a 1914 year of birth highly problematic).

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. While I would normally punt with the BBC as being authoritative, and is normal for BLP subjects be older than they claim, meaning 1912 is more likely to be correct, I cannot see a definitive source for this, so the talk page discussion will have to remain open. In the meantime, a short block is necessary to stop continual back and forth while other people have a look. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


User:WelcometoJurassicPark reported by User:Faendalimas (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Saltwater crocodile (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WelcometoJurassicPark (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. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 2nd June
  2. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 1st June
  3. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 1st June
  4. Diff between two numbered versions of a page, 31st May

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of my warning, 1st June

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [42] [43]

Comments:

This has actually been going on for some time. The user has been repeatedly asked to discuss this on the talk page and has done little to cooperate with this. Is now just reverting everything. The user has been warned by both myself and @Elmidae:. As well as the other editors of the page. I myself have not edited the page but have been attempting to get the issue resolved but leaving it to the editors of the page to make the changes. I have commented on the talk page of the article.

WelcometoJurassicPark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) continues editings (unopposed) even after notification of these procedings. Other users have not reverted the edits while awaiting Admin action. HCA (talk) 18:26, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
@HCA: I have noticed this also, all other editors have held off, so I have asked, not formally requested as I do not know if its possible, an admin here if the page can be protected while awaiting this to run its course. Cheers Faendalimas talk 18:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:2601:640:c301:c5bc:2944:fa78:4b8a:cfc4 reported by User:AlexTheWhovian (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Preacher (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2601:640:c301:c5bc:2944:fa78:4b8a:cfc4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [44]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [45] (initial edit)
  2. [46]
  3. [47]
  4. [48]
  5. [49]
  6. [50]

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

Comments:

  • Result: Article semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 22:02, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The page got protected instead of the editor being blocked? That's bull. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Blocking a dynamic IP that can have a new address in five minutes is hardly worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Tejgavate reported by User:Adamstraw99 (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Art and Culture, Nashik (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tejgavate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [52]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [53]
  2. [54]
  3. [55]
  4. [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:

  • Fixed the malformed report. I'd like to note that Adamstraw99 is as guilty as Tejgavate as far as edit warring on this article goes. In addition there's misplaced warnings from the complainant on the other user's page regarding promotion of non-notables etc etc. The user is trying to add some reasonable content such as Vasant Shankar Kanetkar, Vinayak Damodar Savarkar and the likes as being notable in the field of art and culture of the city and is constantly being reverted and being issued inappropriate warnings. At this point I think that Adamstraw99 has been more disruptive here than the other user. —SpacemanSpiff 17:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I understand my mistake.... I didn't know the other user was inserting names of notable people... it was all looking like self-promotions and adverts.. and the website they were inserting was definitely SPAM... though i take this complaint back as the user has removed promotional section... thanks Adamstraw99 (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Result: User:Tejgavate and User:Adamstraw99 are both warned for edit warring. Further reverts by either party that don't reflect the results of talk page discussion may lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Cax17 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result:Withdrawn)[edit]

Page
Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Cax17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 06:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 72411131 Cite was merely to strengthen the fact that Sanders is still in the race through the results later today. My wording is nearly identical to that found on the 2016 US Presidential election page. Remove it there if it isn't true."
  2. 05:59, 7 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 724110119 by Guy1890 (talk) I am using the nearly the exact wording of why sanders is still in the race that is found on the 2016 US Presidential election page."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 06:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC) "/* June 2016 */ new section" — I recommended they discuss disputed content on talk page.
Comments:

Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 currently has WP:1RR imposed on it. Said user in question added content, it was removed. They proceeded to reverting. Their edit was then undone. Finally, they violated 1RR in restoring disputed content into the article - despite being asked to discuss said content on the talk page. —MelbourneStartalk 06:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


I was in the middle of editing the second revision during when I received said message from the user who reported me. Lack of reason to delete my first addition to the page. If Bernie Sanders still being in the running isn't important information on the democratic primary page, then it should be deleted he is still in the running from the 2016 President election page as well. -Cax17 06:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You are not allowed to revert more than once in a 24-hour period on this article or any other article under the scope of WP:1RR. You are speaking of a content dispute which ought to be discussed on the article's talk page — not in an edit war. —MelbourneStartalk 07:10, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't edit very often, as you can see by my few contributions over the last seven years. But leading voters into the assumption the race is over, when it isn't, is being biased. The remaining states would have a right to have their voices heard. -Cax17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cax17 (talkcontribs) 07:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That's an argument for the content you wish to be added in; the venue to air such view (considering others disagree with you) is here: Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. That does not excuse you from reverting more than once on an article that has WP:1RR, and despite being asked of you to discuss your changes. —MelbourneStartalk 07:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The first revision I did was because it contained vandalism towards the presumptive Republican nominee, if you would like to go back and view that. And as I've stated, I did not receive your message until I was in the middle of undoing your deletion to give it actual sources, and making it sound more neutral.-Cax17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cax17 (talk—Preceding undated comment added 07:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

That would be your third reversion, which is allowed as it was vandalism you reverted. The other reversion was not, as it was a content dispute.
You could have undone your edit, mitigating the violation and hence the report – you did not. —MelbourneStartalk 07:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

The entire point was to make it as apparent as Clinton is the presumptive nominee, as it was to show that Bernie Sanders is still in the race , and just leaving it that she is the presumptive nominee is a disservice to those who have not voted yet. In the future of any high profile pages I may wish to edit, I will just revise what I wrote , rather than reverse its deletion, than revise it. What is in the page now is far more neutral, while still maintaining that Sanders is staying in the race. To me, a statement directly from the campaign held more credence than a news source reporting on it, but now I know otherwise par wikipedia standards. Reporting me wasn't necessary, as it was a mistake made that won't be repeated. Chandler (talk) 08:04 , 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I made a mistake and I was wrong, but accusing me of edit warring is as well. I was trying to find a better source and use more neutral wording, and now I have. I discussed it with the user who most recently deleted my edit, and what I have now is more than acceptable. Chandler (talk) 07:21, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

You could have very well articulated that message on the article's talk page as was asked of you to do prior you editing past WP:1RR, and prior this report. I had not only warned you about WP:1RR prior to you breaking it, but rather: recommended you discuss your edits with others on the talk page. You did not. Hence why we find ourselves here.
Reverting other users' edits beyond once pertaining to a content dispute: is by definition edit warring.
With that said, considering you've owned up to this error of judgement, and furthermore have said you will not allow it to happen again — I'll withdraw this report. Best, —MelbourneStartalk 08:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Withdrawn – As the reporter, I've withdrawn this report on the basis that the editor in question has taken responsibility for their actions, has pledged to not allow such mistake to re-occur. Furthermore, the content dispute which precipitated this WP:1RR issue has been dealt with. —MelbourneStartalk 08:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Appreciated. As I said, I did not receive notice of your messages because I was in the middle of my mistaken second reversion already. I don't normally edit on Wikipedia, but as this is a huge source of information for many people, I felt it necessary to let it be known that Bernie Sanders is still running, as wikipedia should be more neutral than the media. Millions of people are voting in the next 24 hours, and if one Major source of information can be neutral, then I've done my job. And I've even begun contributing to the talk page of thr 2016 presidental race -Cax17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cax17 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc reported by User:StAnselm (Result: blocked one week)[edit]

If this needs to continue, it should do so elsewhere. For example, WP:AN or WP:AE if you want bans. EdJohnston (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page
Ken Ham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 01:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723608625 by 1990'sguy (talk) You removed the original wording in December: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ken_Ham&type=revision&diff=702989316&oldid=702703849"
  2. 01:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723603624 by Isambard Kingdom (talk) seems clear to me that this wording was inserted without consensus and is not in tune with facts."
  3. 22:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Reverted edits by StAnselm (talk) to last version by I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc"
  4. 22:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Undid revision 723531166 by 1990'sguy (talk) umm, unequivocally yes."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Ken Ham. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 00:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC) "/* Scientific consensus wording */"
Comments:

A number of other editors have reverted on this page, but no-one else has broken 3RR. Also three reverts on Answers in Genesis, including one with the less than encouraging edit summary "Facts are facts. This is not up for negotiation". StAnselm (talk) 06:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Heated discussion, trying to root out the pseudoscientific creationist arguments. Looks like it's died down somewhat now. I will be more careful in the future. jps (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument is heated because I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc made it so. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc insults editors:[58], [59], [60], then claims that he/she isn't insulting them: [61]. Now this editor is claiming that he/she will be more careful in the future. Since I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has a long history of edit warring, I think a long and possibly permanent sanction is in order. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 12:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument is heated because pseudoscience is not supposed to be promoted in Wikipedia. The fact that we have pseudoscience promoters parking on articles and their (perhaps unwitting) ignorant supporters attempting to WP:OWN articles on creationism is a bug in the Wikipedia model. It would be good if you stayed away from such topics as you've also demonstrated your lack of competence with regards to this particular subject. jps (talk) 13:42, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
This is an example of unnecessary personalizing the discussion. Speaking only for myself, I don't think I'm an "ignorant supporter" of pseudoscience! Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you don't think that, but it was clear from your commentary that you do not have a firm grasp on the fact that the Earth is billions of years old. You claimed, embarrassingly and falsely, that the age of the Earth was mostly a statistical inference which is simply incorrect and a misconception often trotted out by Young Earth Creationists. You may not be intending to support pseudoscience, but intent is not the same as impact. jps (talk) 13:50, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The personal attacks continue. I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc is focussed on the word "fact", a word that is not often used by scientists, who at least try to maintain a certain level of objectivity and humility in the context of inferences based on assumptions (plausible though they may be) and data. I don't have any personal doubt that the age of the Earth is very close to what the scientific consensus holds, but I don't assert that those estimates are merely "facts". The subject is much richer than that. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Again incorrect. The age of the Earth is a fact. You can go ahead and talk to any number of geologists and astronomers and see why that is the case, if you'd like. In fact (pun intended), you could talk to one right here, but it seems that you simply don't want to acknowledge your own ignorance on the subject which I pointed out. The age of the Earth is manifestly not "mostly a statistical inference". By spouting such incorrect ideas you belie your lack of competence in these matters. Why you are doing so or what your motivation is immaterial. It ultimately causes problems for Wikipedia to allow people who are ignorant and incompetent to contribute to discussions like this. jps (talk) 14:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Made trolling smaller for readability.jps (talk)

For readers' information, the edit creating the following small font (which could be considered as vandalism) was made by User:I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc. DrChrissy (talk) 22:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
For readers' information, DrChrissy has been serially-reverting on this page in classic trolling fashion. [62][63]. jps (talk) 22:19, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
JPS, when are you going to realise that making edits such as this are doing you absolutely no favours whatsoever? This thread is about your behaviour, not mine. The discussion has now broadened from simple edit-warring on your part to incivility and recently to misleading the community - a broadening caused entirely by you and the way you are talking to/about people on this thread. I am sure the closing admin will note this and take it into account when they protect the project. DrChrissy (talk) 22:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not the one edit warring on the edit warring noticeboard. Nor am I the one who is serially wikistalking others to the dramaboards. "Gentlemen. You can't fight in here. This is the War Room!". You're precious. jps (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that. It is my belief that as humans, we are all precious. DrChrissy (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Indeed, I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc has a long history of personal attacks and general incivility to editors he disagrees with. Muffled Pocketed 13:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, what prompted you to stick your nose in here [[User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi? Have we interacted before ever? If no, why are you commenting only on this discussion and not the others? What prompted this? jps (talk) 13:39, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Please, do not apologise. Muffled Pocketed 13:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
So are you just a dramaboards troll then? jps (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
You really do walk into these things, don't you. Muffled Pocketed 14:00, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
So, the answer is "yes", then. jps (talk) 14:04, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
You mean, yes, you find it impossible to respond civilly to editors you disagree with? Thank you for evidencing my original remark. Muffled Pocketed 14:07, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Just be upfront with why you are here. jps (talk) 14:09, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
E/C Fortuna is a regular contributor at WP:ANI. This is a noticeboard and there is no requirement whatsoever that another editor has interacted with you for them to post here. In fact, the lack of interaction between you is more telling as it shows there is no "axe to grind" and Fortuna's assessment is objective and without prior assumptions. I suggest you (JPS) turn your attention to defending your edit-warring actions as this thread is not looking good for you at the moment. DrChrissy (talk) 13:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
This isn't WP:ANI. Go back to your hiding place, DrChrissy. jps (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh dear - perhaps fewer attacks on editors here might, just might, mitigate the sanction that looks likely to be coming your way. DrChrissy (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
You are such a transparent piler-on when it comes to me, it's embarrassing. It's good that Wikipedia is insulated from your ego with the topic bans you are currently enduring. jps (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
As Fortuna says above "You really do walk into these things, don't you.". I have just reminded myself of your "colourful" block log. You have been blocked at least once every year since 2006. The only year you were not blocked is 2012, partly because you were already blocked from 2011! Several of these sanctions are for "block evasion", which I think the closing admin should take into account. Several admins have said their blocks were your last chance. I wonder what your annual 2016 block will bring. DrChrissy (talk) 14:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I see, you and Fortuna collaborate on articles about fish! It all makes sense now. (For those not in the know, this is high-level trolling. Look for the smell of the feet.) jps (talk) 14:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not wish to bring levity to such a serious issue, but it is a personal attack to say that I have smelly feet (and I also do not understand how we should "look" for a smell). DrChrissy (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The statement above that Fortuna and I collaborate on fish articles is totally baseless. This is clearly an attempt to malign other editors responding to this thread and misleads the community. DrChrissy (talk) 15:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
It's a mildly bizarre accusation in any case; and does not yet qualify for 'Crime of the century... Muffled Pocketed 15:56, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Comment: I've interacted with the editor in question on the Talk page of another contentious article, the White Pride, on the thread that I started: Follow up to RSN. I found the editor's actions to be bold, but straightforward and policy based. For the article in questions, multiple editors were reverting the language advocated by the editor (I've found their version to be an improvement and started the discussion on the Talk page: Scientific consensus wording). The reverts were happening while the discussion was on-going, and leaning towards the support of the version advocated by jps. Nonetheless, multiple editors reverted back to the contentious wording. In this regards, I'd agree with editor Lipsquid that this was a "bad faith edit", for example. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:12, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: I was on the other side of jps in an astronomy-related dispute on Earth_Similarity_Index. He responded to an AfD vote he disagreed with by accusing me of "wikistalking." When DrChrissy expressed similar disagreement he too was accused of wikistalking. Note that consensus ended up favoring our position despite jps' 3 or 4 consecutive AfD nominations.
There's a pattern (continued here) of jps personalizing disputes. Once he's identified the "bad guys" in a topic the rules don't apply because he's right and they're wrong, and whatever he does is in the best interest of the encyclopedia. I don't know how to correct that but I think it's important to put this incident in context. James J. Lambden (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Did you forget being on the other side of jps on white pride? jps (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Yep, I was also on the receiving end of the edit warring against consensus by editor James J. Lambden: my edit (based on Talk page discussion) & revert by James J. Lambden, on White pride. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:47, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
K.e.coffman, this was the state of the talk page discussion at the time I reverted with the edit summary "no consensus." It shows no consensus for your removal. Per BRD I reverted, and jps edit-warred to restore your removal. These edits followed a discussion at RSN where jps and others petitioned to remove the same source (in fact I see a number of instances where your edits and jps' overlap) which also closed with no consensus. I stand by my edit and when consensus on the talk page arguably shifted towards removal I accepted it. I believe that's how we're encouraged to edit by policy.
What any of this has to do with jps passing 3RR and personalizing disputes I don't know but you seem to be the only commenter (other than jps himself) who doesn't see a problem here. I've said what I had to say. You're free to submit a report against me if you feel I've violated policy. James J. Lambden (talk) 02:20, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time. jps (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

It's okay, James J. Lambden. We've been monitoring your off-wiki actions as well. We'll get to you in due time.

What the hell kind of threat is this? Completely out of bounds. James J. Lambden (talk) 03:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No threat intended. Your actions at this website and your coordination of such on certain external websites has been noticed by myself and others, however. Wikipedia has certain rules in place about this, but we can discuss this at the appropriate venue if and when you find yourself subject to a special kind of scrutiny of your ongoing actions. Carry on! jps (