Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive343

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Antipsych reported by User:Kleuske (Result: Warned/Page protected)[edit]

Page: Anti-psychiatry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Antipsych (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]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
  7. [8]
  8. [9]


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


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

Comments:

The discussion on the fringe epithet was conducted on the talk-page and the consensus was It should be mentioned. Given the username of this account and the content of his userpage, the user is trying to push his/her POV onto the article. Kleuske (talk) 12:22, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

P.S. See also this remark in the Teahouse. Kleuske (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Consensus in the discussion on "fringe" was that it should be removed the late time I looked. Maybe you should recheck the discussion page.Antipsych (talk) 18:10, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Just read through everyone of Antipsych edits given above. Why oh why penalize a editor for a 3rr when he is being hounded for wanting to improve the article against those who are warping the subject? Aspro (talk) 19:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)


Outside Question: after reading the link that "Antipsych" gave and noticing that they live in a Tampa/Clearwater suburb, and noting that they said "the cardinal belief of the mental health movement and the psychiatry religion", I have left a polite message asking if they are a scientologist (because AFAIK the only people who refer to psychiatry as a "religion" are scientologists, due to scientology itself seeing the field of psychiatry as a form of retail competition). I remembered seeing years ago a news article on Church of Scientology editing on Wikipedia that may be related? Morty C-137 (talk) 20:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

I really didn't intend to violate any 3rr rule. I thought in the discussion on the use of "fringe" that we'd come to a consensus to take "fringe" out of the introductory paragraph on anti-psychiatry. There was disagreement, and people saying this and that. I was hoping the thing was settled.Antipsych (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned / Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. No 3RR warning. Please take it to the talk page. El_C 03:28, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User:AHM22 reported by User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Cotabato City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
AHM22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 781474085 by 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk)"
  2. 13:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 781473681 by 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk)"
  3. 13:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 781472309 by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk)"
  4. 12:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Replaced content with 'THIS PAGE MUST BE SHUTDOWN!!! ALL THE FACTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PAGE ARE BEING REMOVED!'"
  5. 12:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Tourism */ Addtional section "ECONOMY""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Cotabato City. (TW)"
  2. 12:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Only warning: Removal of content, blanking on Cotabato City. (TW)"
  3. 13:13, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Notifying about edit warring noticeboard discussion. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User AHM22 was recently blocked sixty hours by El C for editwarring on this article. Now it has started al over again. I say nothing about the obvious WP:MEAT or WP:SOCK with User:MarkSedu92 (an account set up the day after the block and making exactly the same edits). But this has now entered WP:DE territory as it includes page blanking. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Before seeing this report, I blocked this editor for the blatant edit warring and the same behavior that led to an earlier block. MarkSedu92 is likely a sock, but it's probably best to defer to WP:SPI to confirm it. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Edgar181. If I hadn't made a complete balls-up of the original formatting, you probably would have seen it :D but thanks anyway. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 13:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
And thanks are due to bbb23 for saving me from messing up another report, this time at SPI ;) — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Daviddodecree reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - article under 1RR
User being reported
Daviddodecree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Moved a source relating to Fox News' coverage of the theories to where that coverage is mentioned. Since snark was added while I did this, I've also sourced credible references. They probably need a spot in the article."
  2. 04:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Not "debunked""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 04:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Introducing deliberate factual errors on Murder of Seth Rich. (TW)"
  2. 04:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "/* DS Alert */ new section"
  3. 04:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "/* 1RR + BLP/RS violation */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 02:34, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "/* More non-neutral edits */"
Comments:

User reverted page to a BLP violation (removing the description of widely-rejected conspiracy theories about a recently-deceased person as "debunked" and instead presenting them as possibly true) as their first revert, then after they were reverted, proceeded to revert out reliably-sourced material describing and strengthening the issue. User has made no edits to the article talk page and refused a request to self-revert. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User has since said "oh well, I didn't have anything invested in this account," indicating that the account owner is not here to constructively and collaboratively participate in a community encyclopedia but rather intends to use his account as a POV-warrior throwaway. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

There's a general problem here - the article is under a 1RR restriction AND it is also being discussed off-wiki (reddit plus some other places) where users are encouraging to come here and "fix" the article and edit war on it. This is why in the past 24 hrs or so there's been a big influx of sketchy accounts, most of them sleeper throw away sock puppet accounts, which edit war and there isn't much that established editors can do because they are constrained by the 1RR restriction.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

That's pretty much what happened here. I can see where the second revert came from. I was shuffling the Fox News source around but when I clicked submit it conflicted with two edits made, and I only noticed the "credible sources" one. This isn't my "POC-warrior" account, the is my account on Wikipedia, but comments on the apparent shittyness of the culture elsewhere have deterred me from making a concentrated effort to contribute, so I wouldn't feel bad about losing the account. I do feel that not explaining the content(or basis) of the conspiracy theories whatsoever in the introduction(which is all most people would read), while also having a standing suggestion to retitle the article to refer to the theories, is nonsensical. My initial edit was to simply remove the "unproven" bit and directly reference the DNC emails in the introduction. I also promise not to touch the political side of Wikipedia again etcetera. ^_^ Daviddodecree (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the sources you supply in this edit do not support the claims you make, and in fact, those claims directly contradict the reliable sources cited in the article — there is no credible evidence of the Rich conspiracy theories and they have been widely debunked by law enforcement agencies and media sources. Julian Assange claiming something is not "evidence." You removed reliably sourced material about those facts because that material disagrees with your worldview of the conspiracy theories. If you revert your edit and discuss the issue on the talk page, I think this can be resolved without a block - I would rather you be educated than punished. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:58, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I was referring to the evidence cited by the theories. Feel free to make that clearer. I really don't want to go to the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daviddodecree (talkcontribs) 07:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

They're revert warring me at Fancy Bear as well. Geogene (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2017 (UTC) On second thought, not a 3RR violation. Geogene (talk) 06:32, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, based on the conversation above I'm making the good-faith assumption that Daviddodecree is agreeing to a self-revert but is unable to actually revert their own edit because the article is now extended-confirmed and they can't edit it for that reason. Thank you, Ed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User:67.10.167.124 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Jesse Watters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.10.167.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11] - 00:51, 21 May 2017‎
  2. [12] - 15:58, 21 May 2017‎
  3. [13] - 16:19, 21 May 2017‎
  4. [14] - 16:49, 21 May 2017

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

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

Comments:
At least three editors have posted warnings on his talk page just today about his edit-warring at three different articles; he has removed all warnings from his talk page. Tenebrae (talk) 17:02, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Note: As I was posting this, the anon IP was blocked for six months, so this report appears to be obviated. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked Widr (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

User:N738139 reported by User:VQuakr (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Criticism of the theory of relativity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
N738139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "See talk page of "Relativity of simultaneity""
  2. 17:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC) to 17:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 16:55, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 781503833 by DVdm (talk)"
    2. 17:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 16:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 781503646 by DVdm (talk) vandalism by wikiguard DVdm"
  5. 16:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "undid vandalism of DVdm"
  6. 16:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 781501776 by DVdm (talk) : vandalism : does this sentence need a source???"
  7. 16:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "Vdm has no valid argument. He just do not want to accept other ideas than him"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Comments:

Similar edits at Relativity of simultaneity. Some additional reverts while logged out. Notified of discussion at [18]. VQuakr (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Indef. Edit warring and abuse of multiple accounts, pushing a WP:FRINGE point of view into physics articles. See some of the reasoning at Talk:Relativity of simultaneity#Relativity of simultaneity: "Do you mean our skies are simultane or not???? Please answer." EdJohnston (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Uggh idk reported by User:Philip J Fry (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
En nombre del amor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Uggh idk (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 00:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC) to 00:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:26, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Main */"
    2. 00:29, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Special participation */"
    3. 00:31, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Recurring */"
    4. 00:32, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Special participation */"
    5. 00:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 00:24, 22 May 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

I have already left several messages, but obviously the user does not respond. Philip J Fry Talk to me 00:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR—there's only two reverts listed (consecutive edits count as one revert). Also, it's uncertain that the user knows about 3RR and edit warring in the first place, since {{uw-3rr}} and {{uw-aw}} were not placed on their talk page. El_C 06:09, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Kellymoat reported by User:Sergecross73 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Invisible (Linkin Park song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellymoat (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. [19]
  2. [20]
  3. [21]
  4. [22]
  5. [23]
  6. [24]
  7. [25]
  8. [26]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

Comments:
This editor has not explicitly broken 3RR, but they are definitely edit warring. My main issue, beyond the fact that they have made the same revert 8 times in the last week against the wishes of 4 separate editors, is that after giving them that warning after noticing 6 reverts, they proceeded to revert another 2 times. Their response to the warning was a big "LOL" and indication that they're playing the "I'm entitled to my reverts" game, and then challenge me to report them rather then engaging in discussion, which the editor refuses to do, as they still actively refuse to start up a redirect or AFD discussion. I would normally personally block an editor acting like this myself, but I'm INVOLVED. Sergecross73 msg me 16:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to repeat the entire conversation that just took place on my talk page. It is available for anyone to read in its entirety. But I will sum it up -
I have made just as many attempts to improve the article as I have redirects. I failed. So I re-redirected (page was created as a redirect) the song back to the album. Yes, I said that correctly, re-redirected. On the other hand, Serge has not attempted to improve the article at all. We're only here 6 hours later because he doesn't like that fact that on my talk page, I pointed out that he has not attempted to improve the article.
I will, however, acknowledge that after my first revert in five days (which was a redirect) , he sent me a 3rr notice and left an edit summary telling me to stop edit warring. And, yes, I reverted his edit and I very distinctively said "You made the threat. now, follow through." But I also included "by the way - why haven't you attempted to improve the article?"
After that, as I said, we've been talking on my talk page. The last thing said was me instructing him to "Improve the damn article."Kellymoat (talk) 17:17, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Whether or not I have tried to improve the article has no relevance your edit warring. The fact of the matter is, I saw you make the same revert 6 times in the last week, against the will of three separate editors, and as a result, gave you the {{edit war}} warning on your talk page. Your response to this was to give me a "laugh out loud" and then revert 2 more times. All this happened without you starting a single redirect or deletion discussion. That is edit warring, plain and simple. Sergecross73 msg me 17:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, as I said, this morning was the first re-redirect in 5 days. And the reason for the redirect was the fact that no one improved upon the article. Simply reverting to a previous version isn't an improvement.
Also, to repeat what was said on my talk page (something I said I didn't want to do), a consensus isn't needed. Also, the template inside the redirect states it is already a consensus because the majority of songs fail. This is one of them. I should know, I made improvements to the article and it still failed. You cannot say the same about yourself. You have made zero attempts to improve the article, even after I told you to do so. Kellymoat (talk) 17:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Any time there is a dispute, there needs to be a consensus, and none of your 8 reverts fall anywhere remotely close to anything listed at Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
On a related note, have you noticed that someone is (right now) making changes to the article instead of simply reverting back to failed versions - and I haven't redirected it. The article you kept trying to use was a failure. Oddly enough, I am the author of the failed version that you kept going back to. I acknowledge that my own edit was a failure. Why is this a problem with you. Kellymoat (talk) 17:58, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Yes, thank you for pointing out that now a 5th editor has objected to your edits and reverted you. Sergecross73 msg me 18:01, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That's the part you can't seem to grasp. They aren't reverting "me". They are attempting to improve a failed article.
Insert brief pause -
Ya know what, Serge, I spent hours with you on my talk page prior to you bringing it here. I am done talking to you. Kellymoat (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
That's fine, nothing you've saying here is a valid defense anyways. It seems you don't understand how edit warring or what constitutes a revert. Sergecross73 msg me 18:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Update: Kellymoat has now made a 9th revert with this revert, meaning that Kelly has now overtly broken WP:3RR. (To recap, there is the first, second, third, and fourth reverts, which all occurred on May 19th. Sergecross73 msg me 20:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Pending. El_C 03:29, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Thanks for looking into it. Should be pretty straightforward with his more recent development of breaking 3RR. Sergecross73 msg me 10:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. User asked for a few extra hours to handle their affairs. El_C 03:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Ah, I see. Had not seen your discussion on their talk page. That being said...uh, is this sort of treatment customary around here? I've largely spent my past 4 years of issuing edit warring blocks apart from AN3, I've never witnessedgiving a 3RR breaker 20 hours to wrap up what their working on before they get blocked. I don't understand how one reconciles that with blocking policy, specifically blocks being preventative, not punitive. I don't see this sufficiently addressing the issue. He still hasn't started any discussion or stated that he'd change his behavior. And letting him be blocked on his own terms based on the convenience of his schedule hardly sends the message that he needs to stop this behavior. Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Some other admins might have made the same offer. In my opinion, the main purpose of WP:AN3 is to stop edit wars using whatever method is likely to work best. EdJohnston (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
EdJohnston - If there was any sort of resolution here, then maybe I could see it. But do you see that here? I still see no understanding that it is unacceptable to redirect an article 9 times, against the wishes of at least 5 editors, because they (Kellymoat) personally feels an AFD is unwarranted. That sort of approach is only acceptable within the bounds of WP:BRD. Their conversation amounts to "Hey, I caught you" and "Yeah, I know, wanna block me tomorrow?" Sergecross73 msg me 04:09, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I didn't feel there was immediate danger of further edit warring, so I was happy to give the user the day before the block. Blocks are also preventative in so far as that they serve as a deterrent for future edit warring. Due to having a clean block log and being an established user in good standing, I offered the user either 0RR for 72 hours or a 24 hour block. She chose being blocked, but again, I saw no harm in giving her a day to tie up her affairs. El_C 06:17, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Rik Spoutnik reported by User:Fundude99 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Roy Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rik Spoutnik (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. [29]
  2. [30]
  3. [31]
  4. [32]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [33]


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [34]

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours after seeing AIV report. Katietalk 19:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:BojanJJ reported by User:Kellymoat (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Janet Jackson's Rhythm Nation 1814 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
BojanJJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:15, 22 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:50, 22 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 18:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 17:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Commercial performance */"
  5. 23:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Commercial performance */"
  6. 21:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Commercial performance */"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 18:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Vandalism. (TW)"
  2. 18:55, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule. (TW)"
  3. 19:01, 22 May 2017 (UTC) "/* May 2017 */"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

This is actually happening on multiple pages. Other users have also been reverting his edits. We have sent warnings. We have sent a 3rr warning. We have tried pointing him to the talk pages to see the previous consensus on how to handle the sales figures. But now he resorting to say the we have unprofessional opinions. Kellymoat (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

It's better not to write about sales at all then to put fake made-up numbers. These sales estimates are all guesswork... Unless you have exact number in terms of shipments from a Record company, it's impossible to know how many copies were sold worldwide. What I'm doing is posting numbers by a record company. The best solution would be to post both, a record company claim and sales according to available certifications. Everything else is just a guesswork. In short, nobody needs our consensus, they need the truth. They need reliable sources. Janet's pages don't have any reliable sources. Ebony Magazine is hardly more reliable than Virgin Records, BMG or Billboard Magazine. All I'm asking for is to have data accompanied with reliable sources, not anyone's personal and unprofessional opinion. All artists are getting that treatment, so Janet shouldn't be an exception. BojanJJ (talk) 21:37, 22 May 2017 (CET)

  • Blocked indefinitely.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:48, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Isildurada reported by User:Moxy (Result: Blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page
African admixture in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Isildurada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
See history clear as day.
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
here
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAfrican_admixture_in_Europe&type=revision&diff=780349612&oldid=779292477 here] waring editor did not show up. ...just kept reverting over and over again.

Comments:

Editor has been revert many many times by different editors. With zero attempt to talk to others. Other editors have raised the fact this editor may be sock.....think if this is the case they should open a scokcase. Moxy (talk) 23:36, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The reported editor has been given many chances to engage in talk page discussion. Their once-a-day revert pattern looks like a clear case of WP:GAME. clpo13(talk) 00:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:ViperSnake151 reported by User:Charlesaaronthompson (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Vegas Golden Knights (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: diff


Diffs of the user's reverts:

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


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


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

Comments:

I would close for no valid reason. — JJBers 16:56, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:El cid, el campeador reported by User:Vice regent (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: 2017 Manchester Arena bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: El cid, el campeador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


The user El cid, el campeador (ECEC) has made 4 reverts in 3 hours involving 2 different sets of material.

First set of 2 reverts:

ECEC removes the following: 'Political columnist Katie Hopkins was accused of calling for ethnic cleansing of the UK's Muslim population in a tweet after the explosion, asking for a "final solution".'

1. [35]
2. [36]

Discussion on the topic on the talk page: [37]

Second set of 2 reverts:

ECEC removes the following: 'The Muslim Council of Britain strongly condemned the attack.'

3. [38] This revert was accompanied by an inflammatory summary.
4. [39]

Discussion on the topic: [40]

A 5th revert:

5. [41]

The above is a revert of another users edit:[42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [43]

Comments:
Note the 3RR warning was made after all 5 of the above reverts. I'm not completely sure if ECEC was aware of the 3RR rule. Nevertheless ECEC's response is somewhat uncooperative. I'd take back this report if ECEC apologizes and commits to not violate wp:3RR again. VR talk 15:05, 23 May 2017 (UTC) The final revert was reverting vandalism. I don't think it makes sense to punish people for that. But I didn't realize this was a rule. There was no bad faith, I was just reaffirming edits I made and other people reverted. It was a current event and edits were moving very fast. I'll apologize for not understanding/following the rules.El cid, el campeador (talk) 17:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Esnertofidel reported by User:MrX (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
2017 Manchester Arena bombing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Esnertofidel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "The consensus reached is readily available for examination on the talk page under the header "Katie Hopkins". Re-open the discussion before arbitrarily overturning it."
  2. 20:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "Reverted arbitrary deletion of content established as relevant by consensus."
  3. 20:08, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "This has been discussed. Consensus was it stays due to direct relevancy to article subject, and ample sourcing by secondary source material."
  4. 19:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "Revert per consensus on talk page."
  5. 14:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "Revert. See consensus on the talk page."
  6. 14:21, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "This is being reported on by several mainstream media outlets, who link it explicitly to the incident."
  7. 12:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "journalist owen jones explicitly referred to it as such - entry is directly relevant and well-sourced"
  8. 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "added huffington post citation: incident is directly relevant to article subject and actively being reported on by numerous mainstream media outlets"
  9. 12:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "-rv - neither BLP nor OR, directly relevant to article subject, cited by multiple secondary source materials."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 12:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 12:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Katie Hopkins */ comment"
Comments:

This is ridiculous. I warned this user about 3RR and edit warring at 12:38, when s/he had already reverted removals of this material once, twice, three times. Consensus at Talk:2017_Manchester_Arena_bombing#Katie_Hopkins is against this material being in, yet Esnertofidel has sailed way, way over 3RR in trying to keep it in. (edit: Mr X has now added these first 3 reverts to the list of 9 - 9!! - reverts above. By the way, the first three reverts had no source for the allegation of Hopkins desiring "ethnic cleansing", which was why I twice removed the claim per BLP but Esnertofidel still reverted me.) BencherliteTalk 21:01, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 21:18, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Synchronist reported by User:Alsee (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: KIC 8462852 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Synchronist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [44]


Relevant Diffs, including content reverts:

  1. 20:44, 22 May 2017‎: [45] Synchronist adds their own fringe theory of aliens building a "communication beacon". They cite themselves as the source, citing an email they acknowledge as their own.[46]
  2. 21:23, 22 May 2017‎: [47] Synchronist adds it a second time.
  3. 23:50, 22 May 2017: [48] Synchronist adds it a third time.
  4. 00:55, 23 May 2017 - 04:54, 23 May 2017: [49] Synchronist is warned that that using Wikipedia for self-promotion, which includes ones own theories, is something that is very much frowned upon. As well as Wikipedia policy only allows 3 reverts per user per article per 24 hours. I have expended all three of mine in that article, so if the content reappears, I won't be able to do anything else about it. Synchronist will later interpret this as "permission to re-post".[50]
  5. 05:10, 23 May 2017: [51] Synchronist adds it a fourth time.
  6. 06:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on KIC 8462852. (TW)"
  7. 13:50, 23 May 2017: [52] Synchronist is aware of, and responds to, the Talk page discussion. Synchronist is now explicitly aware that five people on the talk page are unanimously opposed to the edit. It is explained why the edit is unacceptable, and they are explicitly warning yet again Editing against consensus is disruptive and may lead to being blocked from editing. They are strongly advised to seek support on the talk page before trying to add it again.
  8. 17:03, 23 May 2017: [53] Synchronist proceeds to add their own fringe theory of aliens building a "communication beacon" a fifth time, still citing themself as the source.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: As cited above, they received multiple notice about edit warring.


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Cited above.

Comments:
This page relates to significant breaking news. It has spiked to 13k pageviews per day.

In talk page comments, Synchronist has asserted that "speculation is not at all out of place in this article". They have made it clear that they believe they are entitled to bend "traditional rules governing [this] encyclopedias" because their aliens theory is of such importance and because they are an "expert (if such can be considered to exist in this field) when it comes to the strategies which an alien civilization would employ".

A block is needed to prevent their zeal from resulting in further disruption to an extremely high profile article. Hopefully a clue-block will help them return with an understanding that this encyclopedia is edited in a collaborative manner. Alsee (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Notified: [54]. VQuakr (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 48 hours. If the user continues to add their own theory to the article (against the advice of the other editors) a longer block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 21:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Charles lindberg reported by User:Moxy (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Bloc Québécois (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Charles lindberg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 00:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC) "Ugh, removed the words Quebec seats since there are not 338 Quebec seats in the House of Commons"
  2. 23:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "rv removal of the words "Quebec seats" to highlight that the 24 seats shown on the graph are those from Quebec, not all of Canada."
  3. Consecutive edits made from 15:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC) to 15:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 15:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 780933548 by GoodDay (talk) That's not a rule, and it's misleading. See Scottish National Party."
    2. 15:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
As seen on users talk page many waringa about edit waring and lack of willingness to talk.
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
Editor is talking at WP:Canada...but just keeps implementing their preferd version.
Comments:

In general we have been having a problem with this editor and reverting all over. ALSO NOTE editor has already been block for this type of problem.....time for a longer block. ...get the point across. Moxy (talk) 02:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The edits to the Bloc Quebecois was a misunderstanding with User:GoodDay, if you go to his talk page you can see he didn't actually realize I was simply reverting back to his own version. The problem has since been resolved. This can easily be seen by going through the edit history of the Bloc article and seeing what content I was actually reverting, I was not in an edit war even though at first it appeared that way, just a misunderstanding. Charles lindberg (talk) 05:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. That said, please stop edit warring and take it to the article talk page. El_C 06:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Ryubyss reported by User:Geogene (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Murder of Seth Rich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryubyss (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. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]


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


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57] [58] [59] Reporting a 1RR violation. See the banner on the talk page.

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 06:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

User:YSSYguy reported by User:Marc Lacoste (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: Cessna 208 Caravan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: YSSYguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [60]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [61]
  2. [62]
  3. [63]
  4. [64]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [65]


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

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:02, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Amberwaves reported by User:Gamesmasterg9 (Result: 24 hours, both)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [67]


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [68]
  2. [69]
  3. [70]
  4. [71]
  5. [72]
  6. [73]
  7. [74]


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


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

Comments:

For what it's worth, I think each of those edits are reasonable on their own. There is a discussion on the talk page regarding the language for most of those and Amberwaves is right in demanding RS for the particular wording that other users keep adding. Amberwaves definitely violates 3RR but that could just be because the user is unaware of the rule. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:27, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Note that current edit-warring over the last couple of hours on the Greg Gianforte article has been fueled by three editors: Gamesmasterg9 (13 edits), PerfectlyIrrational (29 edits) and Amberwaves (32 edits). Suggest a cool-down block for all three. — JFG talk 03:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
As an editor involved, I'll state my case. User:Amberwaves asked me and other editors to go on the talk page to reach a consensus on the matter, and the vast majority agreed that the incident should be included in the header. He proceeded to ignore the findings, and begun to revert multiple sentences with extensive citations of it. Whatever the case, we've reached a compromise proposal and are not planning on continuing the conflict. If you want to know more about the incident and what occurred, asked me. That being said, I think that he was showing good faith and personally asked for his behavior not to be punished. PerfectlyIrrational (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 04:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Amberwaves reported by User:Mk17b (Result: 24 hours, above)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Gianforte&diff=782116039&oldid=782115941


Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Gianforte&diff=prev&oldid=782125886
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Gianforte&diff=prev&oldid=782125648
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Greg_Gianforte&diff=prev&oldid=782125541


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greg_Gianforte&diff=782126025&oldid=782124284

Comments:
Continuously trying to discuss on talk page. Continuously preemptively removes mention of audio recording even after well sourced including by the NY Times as the editor insisted. | MK17b | (talk) 02:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You haven't provided any sources that actually say the audio supports Jacobs. Is this the biography of a living person? Or do we get to make stuff up?Amberwaves (talk) 02:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I provided a NYT ref that clearly states that the campaign statement is "at odds with Mr. Jacobs’s recording". | MK17b | (talk) 02:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. See above. El_C 04:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

User:194.135.162.163 reported by User:Wesley Wolf (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
194.135.162.163 (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 00:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC) to 00:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Postcard controversy and aftermath */"
    2. 00:41, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Censorship, interrogation of voters */"
    3. 00:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "/* Censorship, interrogation of voters */"
    4. 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "/* 2012 contest */"
    5. 00:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "/* 2012 contest */"
  2. Consecutive edits made from 00:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC) to 00:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC) ""
    2. 00:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 00:25, 25 May 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 00:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. (TW)"
  2. 00:59, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Armenia–Azerbaijan relations in the Eurovision Song Contest. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

IP has added and removed content, to cause controversial issues relating to the two countries. Possible WP:ARBAA related vandalism. Wes Wolf Talk 01:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR—let me know if edit warring persists, though. El_C 04:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

User:71.246.96.210 reported by User:Daniel0wellby (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
User talk:71.246.96.210 (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
71.246.96.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 17:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "stop harassing my talk page, like a psychotic meat-puppet......thanks"
  2. 17:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "removing meat-puppet nonsense from my talk page......"
  3. 16:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "please stop putting junk on my talk page...and stop suppressing sourced, in-the-news, and sky-blue information because you "don't like"...and stop the neurotic edit-warring...."
  4. 16:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "Blanked the page"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 17:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 782226064 by 71.246.96.210 (talk)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
This editor Daniel keeps harassing my talk page, and pasting the same thing on it that I keep removing. He's being a meat-puppet for the other editor MrX. So the blunt words in this context are arguably warranted. He's WAY out of line, and a clear trouble-maker and edit-warrior and a clear liar. MrX said I "plastered the article with ISIL" stuff, when I never said the word "ISIL" anywhere in the article, nor did I even actually edit the article much at all, in general. I simply restored his suppressive removal of "Islamic terrorism in Europe" link from the info box. He seems to think that this thing in Manchester is not proven to be "Islamic terrorism" or something, and is "not sourced", even though it's very sourced, in all of the press, left, right, and center. And then this Danielowellby person (not sure if he's a sock puppet or meat puppet for MrX, but he's definitely out of order and is some kind of tag-team editor-warrior, and harassing my talk page nonstop, with rude nonsense), keeps doing this too. Daniel says I was doing an "unconstructive edit" but never explained just how. So what exactly was an "unconstructive edit"? My restoring an unwarranted and unreasonable removal of sourced and sky-blue information, that the other editor kept doing? Please don't put impertinent meat-puppet junk on my talk page. This editor, MrX, is clearly violating Wikipedia policy against "I don't like" by suppressing copiously sourced and well-known and well-established (and sky-blue) information. With edit-warring, and also harassing my Talk page. Also, I never said "ISIL" anywhere, so that's a lie or sloppy misrepresentation...but simply restored his removal of the "Islamic terrorism in Europe" link in the info box. 71.246.96.210 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. The IP is entitled to remove warnings from their Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MichaelPatterson reported by User:Guanaco (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [75]
  2. [76]
  3. [77]
  4. [78]
  5. [79]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Comments:

diff where MichaelPatterson used a deceptive "Fixed typo" summary to revert

Guanaco 20:14, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. El_C 05:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:WCD109291 reported by User:TBMNY (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page
Tony Ferguson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
WCD109291 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 01:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC) ""
  3. 23:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:55, 25 May 2017 (UTC) "General note: Unconstructive editing on Tony Ferguson. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:
  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. You need four reverts to violate 3RR. El_C 06:02, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:2a02:c7f:da51:5b00:44e6:d1b6:99e5:e096 reported by User:Gricehead (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Michael Ihiekwe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2a02:c7f:da51:5b00:44e6:d1b6:99e5:e096 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


The user has been repeatedly adding/reverting a paragraph sourced only to twitter and containing WP:OR, in the wrong place in this BLP article. Whilst I don't think there's a technical version of 3RR, this has been going on for some time and has been reverted by several users. I picked up on it when I removed the text as part of a copyedit/rewrite.

Another IP user (who may or may not be the same individual) have also inserted the same text, sometimes sourced to twitter, sometimes not. This should be evident from the revision history of the page.

This has been discussed on my talk page since my initial revert. I have not checked whether any discussion occurred on other users talk pages.


  1. Current Diff: [81]
  2. Diff at time I started creating this report (see note at bottom of this report): [82]


Diffs of the user's reverts (in reverse order)

  1. [83] reversion of my removal, 26 May 08:22
  2. [84] reversion of my removal, 25 May 22:19
  3. [85] readdition of material, after removed by my copyedit/rewrite, 25 May 16:27
  4. [86] reversion of removal by user:86.157.71.23, 7 May 16:58
  5. [87] reversion of removal by user:2a02:c7f:5e0e:c00:bcfc:e52f:f306:401a , 4 May 11:34

Other IP user reverting to add same material prior to this:

  1. [88] user:2a02:c7f:da35:6400:7588:8ca:4b8f:cc53 (stale since 24 April) adding after removal by @Qed237:, 24 April 20:09
  2. [89] user:2a02:c7f:da35:6400:7588:8ca:4b8f:cc53 adding after removal by @RockMusicFan2002:, 24 April 14:04
  3. [90] original insertion of material by user:2a02:c7f:da35:6400:7588:8ca:4b8f:cc53, 24 April 13:54



Discussion on my talk page

Comments:

Note: Whilst I have been preparing the report, the user has added additional references and repositioned the information in the article, but the twitter source and the WP:OR still remains. I am not taking any further action because I am probably already at 3RR removing the text when it was improperly sourced. If someone can remove the WP:OR and the twitter source, that would clear this up.

Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Edit to add User has now source the comments to a local paper (The Sheffield Star) thinking it was the national Daily Star. I can't prove it, of course, but knowing that local paper well I suspect they got their material from the user's original research on wikipedia. Disengaging from this now, as at least the edit meets our rules. Gricehead (talk) 09:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Still a reputable newspaper and repytable quote, You also dont deny that and of this occured and for whatever reason seem hell bent on having it removed purely on the basis that the club you support has signed the player , You say you cant prove something then dont dispute it! your whole argument here is about accuracy of source reference then you make presumption based of your own opinon of source quote 'I cant prove it' Anyway you agree now the edit is in line with rules i hope thats the end of the matter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:DA51:5B00:44E6:D1B6:99E5:E096 (talk) 09:13, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

As said, I'm happier with the state of the article now, given the caveats I stated above. This report remains to deal with the behaviour leading up to this point. Cheers, Gricehead (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Result: Semiprotected one month due to IP-hopping revert warrior. Even if we assume this material is adequately sourced, it still needs consensus to include. If Ihiekwe's remark ("that goal will kill Lincoln") was really so inspiring to the other team, wouldn't it have been mentioned in the press by people covering the other team? EdJohnston (talk) 17:06, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


User:anonymous reported by User:Heavydpj (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Air Force Cross (United States) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: anonymous (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. [91]
  2. [92]
  3. [diff]
  4. [diff]


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


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

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation. This report lacks crucial detail, like name of the user in question(!)—I presume it's 73.79.85.211—almost all the fields in this report are blank. Anyway, you need four reverts to violate 3RR. If fake content is being added, please work to prove that this is so. El_C 08:32, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User:80.12.33.47 and User:80.12.42.116 reported by User:Ponyo (Result: Semiprotection)[edit]

Page: École supérieure de commerce de La Rochelle (edit | talk |