Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive341

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Ta'niqua reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Already blocked)[edit]

Page
Always Be My Baby (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ta'niqua (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:35, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775718474 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk) It's sourced"
  2. 17:05, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775710167 by Kellymoat (talk) Find a source that explicitly calls it a pop song; and stop vandalising the page"
  3. 14:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775691941 by Kellymoat (talk) failure to cite a source for genre"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Genre-warring with no talk page discussion. NOte that a RFP request has been submitted. Various discussions elsewhere (ANI, SPI) have also been started, but not particularly relevant to this. Both parties warned as about edit-warring. Defaults to 'revert' however. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

"God is very quick, these days"! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 17:48, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Zohaab reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Gojra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Zohaab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775721739 by Arjayay (talk)"
  2. 11:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775676510 by Arjayay (talk)"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 11:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC) to 11:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 11:08, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "Sources ,books are available for verification of this informationfor775671772 by Arjayay (talk)"
    2. 11:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "All the information i given that is based on actual facts 775671156 by Arjayay (talk)"
  4. 04:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775568879 by Rhododendrites (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User has been repeatedly adding unsourced and promotional material despite talk page messages/warnings. Shows no signs of stopping. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Gal4xe3 reported by User:Eden5 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: University of California, Davis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:Gal4xe3 (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:
Very disruptive and uncooperative. Mass reverting all edits. Article appears to be filled with sock puppets.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 07:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:88.196.91.6 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Windows 10 version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.196.91.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [8]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [9] (He undid the wrong version but I assume he intended to revert this version by me)
  2. [10]
  3. [11]
  4. [12]


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


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

Comments:

His edits are nonsense, he was changing the dates of preview versions to dates of public release versions in the table of Preview versions of Windows 10 Redstone 2, no idea what he is doing, I guess he don't really understand the situation there. I have tried explaining the situation on his talk page, but that doesn't work. He said "You're removing cited and compliant content, you're just trolling this page.. You're everything that is wrong with wikipedia.." in the edit summary of one of the reverts, even placing the dispute template on the article, saying "since people who actually use correct citation and information are being warned and trolls are running free". I suggest that the page should at least be semi-protected to stop these addresses from changing content illogically. Thank you. Hayman30 (talk) 11:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

He said "I was warned because I had a problem with people forcing content that was uncited or where one person made a lot of release dates 4/1/17???" on his talk page regarding my warnings. Hayman30 (talk) 12:05, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
He also reverted several of my edits on that page without giving any explanation, and he claimed that I was trashing the page. 175.141.38.1 (talk) 13:45, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


Response: You repeatedly replaced my double-cited MS blog(same source as your cite for "Preview") release date for slow ring with your "Preview" citation that had nothing at all to do with slow ring. In the middle of another user mass-vandalizing the page which you didn't seem to have a problem with.. Not sure how that makes no sense to you; it was even the 11th before for a while before a lot of dates(which I didn't change to correct or look who vandalized) were all modified. At one point most of the dates were even 4/1/17.. You were wrong(easily provable(especially since the ISO the MS tool downloads is dated 4/11/17)) and just plastering incorrect information all over the page.. Complaining under a username doesn't make what you keep putting on there any more correct..

@88.196.91.6: Please calm down. Firstly, your source is about the public update to PC, not mobile. Your edits are targeted to the preview versions table for mobile, which is irrelevant. Meanwhile, the original source verifies that the update is released to mobile users, both the fast and slow rings, on March 28 and March 29 respectively. Secondly, you ignored my attempts to sort things out with you. I tried to talk to you about the situation on the article's talk page and on your talk page. Thirdly, regarding "another user mass-vandalizing the page", I assume that you're talking about 175.141.38.1 who added a bunch of updates with Microsoft Support as the source. I don't consider his edits as constructive, but I don't see anything wrong with them, he wasn't vandalizing the page. In conclusion, you've made unconstructive edits and failed to discuss the dispute with me and other editors. Hayman30 (talk) 12:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Article semiprotected two weeks. This is mostly a dispute among IP editors. Please use the talk page to explain the issue and (hopefully) persuade the others. EdJohnston (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
@Hayman30: All platforms were 4/11 for slow ring as verified by my citation and yours. Now PC is back to 4/1/17 too which also conflicts with anything MS or third-party. I'm done editing though since it doesn't seem to be a problem that all the dates conflict with real citations.. The second any authority figure from Wikipedia checks the content of the few citations there they are going to see it's not me who is the one carelessly behaving on their pages.. Again, your citation doesn't even include slow ring which is what you are convinced you're right about, and most definitely slow ring PC wasn't released released 4/1 because on top of all citations:MS Download Tool is publicly monitored by thousands of devs using dism.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.196.91.6 (talk)

User:111.123.144.58 reported by User:Hayman30 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Windows 10 version history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 111.123.144.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [15]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [16]
  2. [17]
  3. [18]
  4. [19]
  5. [20]
  6. [21]


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


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

Comments:

Classic vandalism, keeps removing a source without giving a single reason. Warned for removal of content already. Hayman30 (talk) 11:59, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Result: Article semiprotected per an earlier report. EdJohnston (talk) 14:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Mcvarial & User:SDeSchep reported by User:J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (Result: Declined – malformed report)[edit]

Page: Template:Doel Nuclear Power Station
Page: Template:Tihange Nuclear Power Station

User being reported: Template:Mcvarial & Template:SDeSchep

This war is already going on for some time, my opponents feel themselves superior far above me. I tried to get in contact. But these people claim they know all about nuclear power, those reactors are "safe", FANC is completely independent. And above this: accusations like anti-islam feelings that I would support... These people try to advertise nuclear power, and are in no way neutral to the subject.

I'm fed up with this for sure.

J.T.W.A.Cornelisse (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2017 (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. NeilN talk to me 15:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Wisdom of the Ancients reported by User:Anastan (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Page
Dardani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Wisdom of the Ancients (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 11:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC) to 12:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 11:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Etymology */ It's a well-known historical fact that "Dardani" derived their name from Dardanus, and Dardanus Pronunciation of Dardanus [dar-d-anus] as a name for boys has its root in Greek. Please, stop the Albanization of historical facts."
    2. 11:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Greek mythological origin */ This section is irrelevant, because the origin of the word "Dardani" is already explained. Albanians are well known for forging the national identity."
    3. 11:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
    4. 12:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC) to 10:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 10:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Etymology */ There is ONLY GREEK origin of this word. That's a well-known historical facts."
    2. 10:48, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Greek mythological origin */ This is irrelevant section, because it's already explained."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 10:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC) to 10:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 10:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
    2. 10:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Greek mythological origin */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 10:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC) to 10:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 10:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Etymology */"
    2. 10:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Greek mythological origin */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Comments:

User was already warned several times on talk. Looks like SPA. --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

  • And now blocked for one week. --NeilN talk to me 15:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:27.56.187.146 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Page protected)[edit]

Page
North Sentinel Island (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
27.56.187.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "The claim of a coastal navy confined to west India having presence in remote islands in east is false and not backed by reliable source"
  2. 10:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775830159 by 73.93.155.10 (talk)undid NON SENSE"
  3. 10:29, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775829637 by 73.93.155.10 (talk)"
  4. 10:21, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 775808773 by Jusdafax (talk)"
  5. 06:49, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "No evidence of Angre's presence. Invalid citations."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on North Sentinel Island. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Going at this one hammer and tongs. Removal of sourced material. Against the advice of multiple registered editors. Caustic edit-summaries not indicative of a collegiate approach.O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 10:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

This can probably be administratively closed; the page has been semi'd, the discussion is ongoing on TP, and perhaps most importantly, the admittedly crap sources are going to be removed and replaced with RS. Which ironically would not have happened without the IP's edit warring :) for which small mercy we can be grateful. Cheers! — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis

Response:I am afraid your "RS" are still crap. Non descriptive one liners from books that are not peer reviewed, and published by nondescript publishers operating out Delhi basements don't make a ridiculous falsehood true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.56.187.146 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Johnsmith0774 reported by User:Meters (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: South Farnham School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Johnsmith0774 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [24] Editor's version from 16 April


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [25]
  2. [26]
  3. [27]
  4. [28] Self-reverted but soon replaced by the substantially similar following edit:
  5. [29] All of these diffs are from 17 April


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


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


Comments:

The editor's edits have been undone by three different users, all of whom have left edit summaries questioning the relevancy of the material. [32], [33], and [34]. One of the editors also left a comment on the editor's talk page [35]. The editor has been been asked to take it to the article's talk page twice in edit summaries [36] and [37], once on the editor's talk page [38], and once on my talk page [39]. Instead he or she self-reverted and replaced the edit with substantially the same material in the guise of school history [40]. Meters (talk) 03:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 03:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Kandi reported by User:Borsoka (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Peter II of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kandi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [41]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]
  4. [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46], [47]

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 03:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Addendum: Not ruling out a topic ban, but we'll see if the editor accepts this last chance to stop edit warring and collaborate. Let me know if they fail in this. El_C 03:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Miki Filigranski reported by User:Fraenir (Result: Warned user(s))[edit]

Please don't carry on a content dispute here. --NeilN talk to me 13:01, 18 April 2017 (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: Jōmon period (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miki Filigranski (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. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C5%8Dmon_period&diff=775553543&oldid=775456746
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C5%8Dmon_period&diff=775617498&oldid=775603798
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=J%C5%8Dmon_period&diff=775617498&oldid=775603798
  4. [diff]


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


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

Comments:
OPTIONAL: User doesn't understand genetics or DNA, yet insists on claiming that I'm biased and that the other version is sourced (sourced statements can be misleading or wrong, but the user in question doesn't understand or care). Fraenir (talk) 02:39, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

FALSE: Fraenir failed to link that I started the discussion to resolve the dispute, that noticed him two times ([49], [50]) to respect WP:BRD and do not revert until dispute is resolved. However, until now in the discussion did not properly substantiate (based on sources and editing policy) his explanation for the removal of reliably sourced information, and he tried to push another, seemingly older revision, thus his reverts between 15-16 April were more WP:DISRUPTIVE rather than constructive or improvement for the article. I reject the notion that I do not care, starting a discussion is clear evidence that at least partially I do, and according to previous statements obviously user Fraenir is the one who does not "care" about the content and policy when impatiently push for unsubstantiated removal/reversion.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I think Miki Filigranski should really behave better. He violated 1RR restriction on several pages related to Syria war, for example
  1. [51],
  2. [52].

and here:

  1. [53],
  2. [54]

Note that in edit summaries of diffs above he mark his edits as reverts. I tried to talk with him [55], but ... My very best wishes (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

    • Your reply has no connection to report by Fraenir. I did not violate the 1RR restriction, the unblock request was accept within two hours by admin NeilN. User My very best wishes once again is obsessively following me, trying to block me with false arguments, and what he consider by "talking" is actually spamming other editor's talk page (to the point it needed blanking), which was also ignored by the same admin.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Are you telling that you did not violate 1RR restriction in two examples above? Why? Because your edits were not reverts, even though you marked them as reverts? I commented here because based on your responses [56] you are not going to respect editing restrictions on pages. My very best wishes (talk) 03:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
Interestingly, after these replies the user made a WP:DISRUPTIVE revert to 2017 Shayrat missile strike which is an obvious provocation as I stated at the talk page. I recently mentioned to the admin NeilN that the user is a WP:GAMETYPE intentionally doing disruptive edits, this revert is the proof.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: Recuse. El_C 03:58, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned The last revert was outside the 24 hour period dictated by WP:3RR. However Miki Filigranski should read WP:ROPE and realize that any more edit warring could very well result in a block, whether or not 3RR was breached. NeilN talk to me 01:08, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
User has resumed edit warring at Jomon Period ([57] [58]) and Ryukyuan people (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ryukyuan_people&diff=prev&oldid=775865130). I've already demonstrated on the talk page for Jomon Period that the stuff I was removing was either incorrectly or misleadingly sourced, OR, or SYn. The user insists on re-inserting questionable percentages in both articles. Fraenir (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
There was no WP:CONSENSUS on the content change, and user Fraenir made false statements that sources do not mention some terms, which they do, or overweights minor errors to the point of excuse for the removal of the whole paragraph (instead fixing or re-wording), according to his personal liking rather than based on reliable source or editing policy. He simply fails to substantiate.--Miki Filigranski (talk) 15:41, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
I also want to complain and report this user Miki Filigranski of edit warring and cherry-picking sources and editing the way that he wants.
The very same sources that's edited in wikipedia ( such as http://www.nature.com/jhg/journal/v62/n2/full/jhg2016110a.html and https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280121130_Unique_characteristics_of_the_Ainu_population_in_Northern_Japan )that claims Ryukuans are 50-60% or 28% Jomon (which he allowed on the wiki page ) also stated " The genetic origins of the Jomon people and their relationships with modern populations have not been clarified " and " The study compared genome-wide SNP data of the used of Ainu, Ryukuan and mainland Japanese by using Ainu as representatives since they the closest descendants of the Jomon people and it also used continental Asians (Han Chinese, Koreans) as descendants of Yayoi people, to measure the exact proportion of Jomon genetic components in mainland Japanese and Rykyuan. " yet keeps removing the latter parts.
The very same source also said " A plausible explanation may involve the following scenario: the Jomon people who already settled in Ryukyu Islands experienced admixture with migrants from the continent who themselves may have already admixed with the Jomon people in the Japanese Mainland" yet he keep removing them as if the he doesn't want people to know that the people conducted the same study on the Jomon admixtures is still not fully clear on the genetic relationship between Jomons and with modern population of Japan. The source basically says that the genetic relationships between Jomon and the populations of Yamato, Ryukyan, Ainu is not well fully understood yet which is a 100% fact and it comes from the same link/references that he allows in the wiki page.DragoniteLeopard (talk) 19:20, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
DragoniteLeopard (talk · contribs) appears to be inserting original interpretations of sources; and forcing it through edits rather than discussing.[59][60] They seem to know that discussion should take place (edit summary here[61]), but not that they should involve themselves in it. I don't, however, see a 3RR violation by either editor on the Ryukyuan people page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 05:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Ryk72, I was the first one who used to talk page for openly discussion in Ryukuan page but instead Miki Filigranski didn't bother to even reply me. I've already replied you on the [62] Ryukyuan people and it's incredible that you accuse me of doing original interpretation when everything I wrote is based on the sourced/references edited in the wiki page of Ryukyuan people. I also have to avoid copyrights so I of course think there must be some changes but there no own interpretations. If there really is original interpretation of sources please point them out. Simply claiming 50-60% and 28% Jomon ancestry without putting the reason behind it is misleading the readers when the study itself claims the Jomon admixture is still debatable and not well clarified yet. DragoniteLeopard (talk) 8:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I agree that you opened a discussion, which is to your credit; but it does not permit you to continue to edit in your desired version. As I said above, there is no 3RR violation at Ryukyuan people; this is a distraction from the main filing here, and it would be better for the content discussions to be continued at the article Talk page. I will reply to your extensive comment there. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:56, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Can please describe to me what you mean by " your desired version ". I had to edited in my way to avoid any copyrights but I didn't change the meaning of the source.DragoniteLeopard (talk) 1:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps "to edit in" as a verb is strange. I mean editing to change the article to contain the information that you want it to contain. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 12:20, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above 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.

User:Simione001 reported by User:Manunited20 (Result: Wrong noticeboard)[edit]

Page: Mario Shabow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Simione001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Regarding the Mario Shabow page, on the info box user:Simione001 keeps adding the western sydney wanderers youth caps on the senior appearnces section for the professional footballer, that does not belong on the senior caps. any person would know that Youth caps do not count towards senior caps . even if they are played on a professional level as they are still counted as youth Caps.

so if the Admin could advice User Simione001 to stop doing that on the page and other A-leage footballers pages. he has had alot of complaints from Wiki users and seems to ignore it . (User talk:Manunited20) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

@Manunited20: You want WP:ANI or WP:DRN, not this board. --NeilN talk to me 12:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NokSuk reported by User:Flyer22 Reborn (Result: One week)[edit]

Page: Ghost in the Shell (2017 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NokSuk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [63]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [64]
  2. [65]
  3. [66]
  4. [67]
  5. [68]
  6. [69] (as one of his IPs)
  7. [70]
  8. [71]
  9. [72]
  10. [73]
  11. [74]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [76]

Comments:
NokSuk has repeatedly edit-warred on the whitewashing matter when it comes to the lead of the Ghost in the Shell (2017 film) article. Editors have objected to his edits by reverting him and by explaining the objections on the article talk page, but NokSuk has continued to revert. I also believe that he is logging out to edit war; this is an obvious, recent example. I recently got the article semi-protected to stop the IP disruption and to force NokSuk and/or others to discuss matters on the talk page; see here and here. But the edit-warring by the NokSuk account also needs to stop. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

definitely not as one sided as you make it to be. not including the statement of the owners of the series, while basically accusing the directors of racism, gives undue weight to the criticism of the article. either include both or neither. btw. i'm fine with how the article is now. also, i absolutely did not use multiple accounts. check it if you don't believe me. NokSuk (talk) 05:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
also Flyer22 Reborn you didn't not make a single point on why the lead should only mention the criticism, while ommiting the statement of the owners and creators of the series. all you did was threathen and accuse me of using IP adresses withouth any proof or merit. NokSuk (talk) 05:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not going to sit here and argue with you. This noticeboard is about behavior; it is not about debating article content. Editors can easily see that I gave my reasons for objecting to your additions by looking at my "18:55, 14 April 2017 (UTC)" and "03:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)" posts at the article talk page. I have no patience for your edit warring or your claims that this barely-there IP is not you. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
oh... wow. you found the SINGLE instance where i forgot to log in before commenting. totally legitimizes your comment (check sarcasm again). also, one thing you proved is that you clearly go for threats and accusations. yeah... as you said, you don't have patience. NokSuk (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Anyone is free to find more instances. Like I stated on the article talk page, I noticed the matter as soon as I looked at the edit history. The only reason you are now admitting to being that IP is because anyone with a lick of common sense should be able to see that you are. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
put your money where your mouth is and point. it. out. your grasping at straws. i made one edit withouth loging in (which was a mistake, i coud've said no it wasn't me, but i wont because i realized i forgot to log in). now, where are the others you insinuate? please point them out so i can shut it down as nonsense NokSuk (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
And one more thing: Do study the WP:Undue weight policy. You clearly don't understand it even a little bit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. the statement of the creators of the series is the most significant viewpoint, since they decide what is and is not cannon. (already posted this on talk, but ofcourse you neither read it or responded) and ommiting their statement in response to this 'controversy' gives undue weight to those who criticize the series. NokSuk (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
WP:Due weight is an aspect of the WP:Neutral policy. On Wikipedia, being neutral does not mean that everyone gets their say. It means that we give most of our weight to what the vast majority of reliable source state. The vast majority of reliable are opposite of what that one creator states. And regardless of what he states, a controversy on the matter exists. And per WP:Lead, controversies that are summarized lower in the article should also be in the lead. Again, study WP:Due weight, and a number of our other policies as well. I am done replying to you in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
so bloggers and people who have nothing to do with ghost in the shell have thier say, while the creators and owners are ommited?? flawless logic. NokSuk (talk) 06:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Ryk72, I only reverted the NokSuk account on the lead matter twice, as seen here and here. This was me fixing an accidental revert by NokSuk and fixing material lower in the section. The other edits, with the exception of reverting this suspicious IP who blanked material with no explanation, were tweaks. Meanwhile, NokSuk has been reverted by multiple editors (including Popcornduff and Sro23) on the lead matter. You can suggest sending this issue back to the talk page, but it will not stop NokSuk from edit warring and from not understanding WP:Due weight and WP:Lead. I suggest waiting for an actual administrator to weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:51, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
I have just noticed now the Talk page discussion "I added Sam Yoshiba's statement to the lead". It appears that there has been discussion, and I am happy to stand corrected on that aspect. I am not, however, convinced that either the DUE aspects are as clean cut as suggested. We appear to be giving too much weight to some viewpoints, with multiple quotes from a single, primary (interview) source for opinions of non-experts; that is, of course, a matter for another page. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 10:45, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Noting in the lead that there is whitewashing controversy is not WP:UNDUE. A brief sentence or two noting the beauty ideal aspect as one view for why Japanese natives are not upset by the casting is not WP:UNDUE. From what I see, the Criticism section is currently appropriately balanced, given all the available sources on the matter. But again, this noticeboard is about behavior. It is not about debating article content. NokSuk's repeated additions and removal of material from the lead against objections from multiple editors needs to stop. Giving him a slap on the wrist will not change a thing. Yeah, we can continue to try to discuss at the talk page, but this editor does not understand. And once the semi-protection on that article is lifted, there will be the same IP revert game going on. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:01, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
And, on the article talk page, I did indicate that I would be okay with noting the creators' view to the controversy in the lead...if done right. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
On the topic of behaviour, without singling out any particular editor, the Talk page discussion there is not great... too focused on contributor, not content... and not conducive to resolving the reversion issue. But... I think we're about ready to change venues... so... let's discuss WP:UNDUE over there (I agree with one and disagree with the other)... and let's see if it can be done right. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Again, I am waiting for an administrator to weigh in on NokSuk's behavior. A single editor edit warring against multiple editors is going to be focused on. That is why this report, which you are derailing, was started. That is not singling out an editor. When the behavior becomes problematic, it is going to be noted on the article talk page and/or the user's talk page. Other editors following the rules and working things out does not mean that the problematic editor will stop being problematic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
And, honestly, given my past interactions with you, I was hoping that you would not attempt to derail this report (when I saw you in the edit history of this page). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
And, honestly, I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm over there, discussing content. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 13:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
And I'm over here trying to get the focus back on NokSuk's behavior because you decided to focus on me as though I was edit warring against any and everyone. After that, you decided to focus on the content here in this section. But, yeah, I'm over there disputing your commentary with reliable sources. That, however, does not change what needs to be done regarding NokSuk. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week. El_C 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:2600:387:8:f::72 reported by User:Rockchalk717 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Bo Burnham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2600:387:8:F:0:0:0:72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [83]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning of violation


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [84] Among others in edit summaries in my 2nd post on talkpage.

Comments:


Potential IP address sockpuppetry as well because the same reverts were coming from IP address 2602:306:3247:3680:6d52:a322:350f:308a as well.--Rockchalk717 05:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 08:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:MShabazz reported by User:Talulah James (Result:No violation )[edit]

Page: Oberlin College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [85]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [86]
  2. [87]
  3. [88]
  4. [89]


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]

Comments:Malik Shabazz is a sock puppet of MShabazz. I was requested to provide additional sources and I did so but he still keeps undoing my edits. Usually people who adopt the name Shabazz are followers of Louis Farrakhan, which may be why he has a problem with this particular edit.

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 12:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:79.222.78.207 reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page
Ariana Grande discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
79.222.78.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 16:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 13:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 22:15, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 22:06, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  5. 21:38, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  6. Consecutive edits made from 13:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC) to 13:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 13:26, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 13:29, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 13:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  7. 12:46, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  8. Consecutive edits made from 09:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC) to 09:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
    1. 09:35, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 09:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
    3. 09:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Usage of multiple IPs. (TW)"
  2. 22:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

user's first edits were overstating sales and certifications - reverted. Since then, it has been a back and forth over what image to use. Also suspected of being the two IP Users starting with 2003:80:C712:8D56: that have been on this article. Myself, and other users, have reverted the edits way more than we should have. Kellymoat (talk) 17:18, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. El_C 17:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User: GregJackP reported by User:Jytdog (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Plummer v. State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GregJackP (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 at 16:39, 12 April 2017
  2. diff at 01:21, 17 April 2017
  3. diff at 18:17, 19 April 2017
  4. diff at 18:33, 19 April 2017


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Plummer_v._State#Internet_meme_section

Comments:

Edit warring is blatant. Not technically over 3 in 24 hours but the intent to keep this content no matter what is very clear. Jytdog (talk) 18:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Comment. The statement made by Jytdog is incorrect, as I have not taken a position on retaining the material or not. The material was included in the article following a long discussion on the talk page of this article and at Talk:Bad Elk v. United States back in 2015. I don't have a problem with changing the article so long as the people that proposed the change in the earlier discussion get consensus to do so. Jytdog was on the side in 2015 that wanted to remove the material and consensus was against him. He doesn't get to come back now and arbitrarily remove the material without gaining consensus. GregJackP Boomer! 18:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Reverting 4 times to keep it exactly in the form it has been in, is "taking a position". Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. I suggest you take it to the article talk page; perhaps try an RfC to gain the consensus to either keep or remove the contested passage. El_C 19:00, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
That is a bad decision. The policy says that you don't have to violate 3RR in 24 hours to violate the policy and the edit warring is blatant. 2nd bad decision like this by you El C. btw, JzG was cleaning up garbage sources and GregJackP is actually edit warring to retain InfoWars as a source, which was not part of the discussion back in 2015. It was added here in January 2016, after that dispute had ended. This is just GregJackP litigator tactics. Two misrepresentations by him in one post. Not bad. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: You claimed that the editor had gone over 3RR, but that was not the case. El_C 19:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: 2nd bad decision—only 2nd? And like this? Well, you are entitled to your opinion. But do you realise the sheer number of reports I close on this board? Just scroll up. I realise being upset at not getting the result you're after, but you cannot expect reports to always go your way. El_C 19:40, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
(EC) And each time I reverted I stated that consensus included the material, and you need consensus to remove it. You don't get to overturn consensus arbitrarily, and especially not after it had been reverted with a request to gain consensus to remove it. Get consensus and then remove it, but it's been in the Plummer article for several years, as it has with the Bad Elk article (which is a GA, as you know, since you tried an ill-advised GAR during the last discussion). There's no emergency to remove material that a consensus of editors believed should be in the article. You can get consensus to remove it instead of what you are doing now. I don't think InfoWars is a reliable source, but you keep removing the entire section. Hell, do an RFC and remove it in a week if you're so sure it needs to be removed. GregJackP Boomer! 19:06, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) GregJackP's only "contributions" to the Talk page are this, which makes a misrepresentation that infowars has been there "for several years" and this which does nothing to help form consensus but only notes that he restored "until consensus forms". Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
and the decision here has now been crowed about on the article talk page in true wikilawyer fashion - diff. Which they chose to do, instead of responding to a question about resolving the dispute, which i put to them earlier here. This should not have been closed no violation, as it just encourages that kind of behavior. I have asked them again to respond on the substance. Jytdog (talk) 19:16, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Comment: Instead of making accusations against your fellow editors, list an RfC to find out what's what. El_C 22:20, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
After editors were shouting about the unreliable sources that were continuing to be restored this happened. Why would someone add a blog? QuackGuru (talk) 22:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
This belongs on the article talk page. El_C 22:47, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

User:ForexAficionado reported by User:NeilN (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Crowdfunding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
ForexAficionado (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Have to take a stand against the draconian dictatorial slashing by those simply drunk & delirious on the power they believe comes automatically with an admin login. Please move on to another topic. You are ruining WP."
  2. 04:01, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Added to WP by enriching the article w/ relevant background historical facts. Numerous citations, references and supporting info has been added. I am well versed and vouch for its accuracy. Pls dont worsen WP by rvrting these edits. DM me on my talk page."
  3. 03:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776123092 by NeilN (talk)"
  4. 03:12, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 776050368 by MrOllie (talk) It is 100% legitimate to cite the Industry Leaders"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 03:38, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Crowdfunding. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "/* New spammish text */ new section"
Comments:
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 00:07, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Redom115 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)[edit]

Page
President of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Redom115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:55, 19 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 23:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "If you look at Business Insider, it will have POTUS as most powerful person based on several measurements."
  3. 22:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Added content"
  4. 21:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "The POTUS is the most powerful person on earth"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 23:43, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on President of the United States. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This user has a troublesome history of edit-warring about who is the most powerful/influential whatever. It doesn't seem to stop them, though. Bbb23 (talk) 00:02, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours All those contentious changes and only this? Not good. NeilN talk to me 00:12, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Staples88 reported by User:GeneralizationsAreBad (Result: Blocked 60 hours)[edit]

Page
Stanley Gerzofsky (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Staples88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Edited the "NRA sponsored" part about legislation. Gerzofsky sponsored and supported bills that limited and restricted firearm use and ownership. These bills had nothing to do with the NRA, and using the phrase "opposed NRA supported bills" is incorrect"
  2. 22:27, 19 April 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 22:24, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Wording"
  4. 10:59, 19 April 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 22:30, 19 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Stanley Gerzofsky. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

First edit listed here is a revert, see previous version: [91]. Warning pt. 2 by Namiba: [92]. This would seem to fall under discretionary areas such as American Politics 2 and Gun control. GABgab 23:10, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. I also left discretionary sanctions alerts for American politics and gun control on their talk page. Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:19, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Looks like the same user is trying to evade the block and remove reliable sources.--TM 14:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Standing Steel reported by User:Spike Wilbury (Result: Blocked 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Eagles (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Standing Steel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [93]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [94]
  2. [95]
  3. [96]
  4. [97]
  5. [98]
  6. [99]


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


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

Comments:
This user has been trying to change the "dates active" for the Eagles and refuses to engage in discussion. After their initial edit was reverted (by me), they have performed it six more times in the last two days, reverting a total of four different editors who dispute this change. Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue the user is editing is currently being discussed on the talk page. I support a short block for this user (and any possible socks) because he is refusing to participate on the talk page. But, I will point out, that in the end, the user may be correct. It all depends on what happens with the current discussion(s) on the talk page. My plan is, if no one else participates with new information, to change the article on Sunday or Monday based on the consensus. Kellymoat (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours based on the RFPP request before I saw this. Ks0stm (TCGE) 18:41, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:59.102.20.8 reported by User:MPFitz1968 (Result: Blocked 36 hours)[edit]

Page
Elena of Avalor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
59.102.20.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */"
  2. 19:11, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Added production code please don't delete!"
  3. 19:09, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Added production code please don't delete!"
  4. 13:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Added production code."
  5. 09:33, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Added production code from looking at Foxtel guide."
  6. 08:18, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Episodes */Found out about unknown production code."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 19:10, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Elena of Avalor. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

No attempt to bring it up on the article's talk page or the talk pages of those who reverted them. Keeps adding in unsourced content. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

And add another. Also, ignored request to add whatever "Foxtel guide" is as an inline citation. --IJBall (contribstalk) 19:36, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours NeilN talk to me 19:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Abductive reported by User:DHeyward (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Todd Heap (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Abductive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:08, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DHeyward (talk) to last version by Abductive"
  2. 02:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC) "Source added: police say tragic accident."
  3. 15:50, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DHeyward (talk) to last version by Abductive"
  4. 05:24, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "Reverted edits by DHeyward (talk) to last version by Abductive"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Abductive has been blocked for edit warring previously. --DHeyward (talk) 04:34, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 17:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC) "/* Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2017 */"
Comments:

Continues to add questionable material to a biography without trying to get consensus or address BLP concerns. DHeyward (talk) 04:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

A simple check of the history and talk page will reveal that several users have independently attempted to add the same sourced and uncontroversial material to the article, only to be reverted endlessly by DHeyward with his invented rule that Wikipedia cannot report anything until the Medical Examiner makes a pronouncement. It is DHeyward that is edit warring. Abductive (reasoning) 04:39, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@Abductive: You have three previous blocks for violation of the bright line 3RR. Why should I not block you for this violation of 3RR? Ks0stm (TCGE) 04:47, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Because previous infractions should be irrelevant. I regard DHeyward's edits as whitewashing and vandalism, and have said so. Blocking me will send DHeyward the message that he can continue to impose his will on Wikipedia through Wikilawyering.