Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions
Line 482: | Line 482: | ||
*{{AN3|n}}. What sticks out like a very sore thumb when looking at the revision history of the listed pages is that both the filer and the reported user are edit warring. Maybe if both users stop editing the articles things might get better, but at this point the only action I would take is to block them both. I'm not going to sort out who's "worse" when both have mishandled the content disputes.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|n}}. What sticks out like a very sore thumb when looking at the revision history of the listed pages is that both the filer and the reported user are edit warring. Maybe if both users stop editing the articles things might get better, but at this point the only action I would take is to block them both. I'm not going to sort out who's "worse" when both have mishandled the content disputes.--[[User:Bbb23|Bbb23]] ([[User talk:Bbb23|talk]]) 15:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
:*In my defense, I'm not removing sourced material, I'm not adding unsourced material (ie I'm following [[WP:V]]), and when I realised I was starting to get involved in constant edit warring, that's when I stopped and came here. I've tried going through the usual [[WP:BRD]] procedure with the other editor, but the other editor is the one who refuses to participate in it. Anyway, I'm already leaving the contested articles alone until some sort of resolution comes from here, but would it be better to move this to the main [[WP:ANI]] and go from there? [[User:MrMoustacheMM|MrMoustacheMM]] ([[User talk:MrMoustacheMM|talk]]) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
:*In my defense, I'm not removing sourced material, I'm not adding unsourced material (ie I'm following [[WP:V]]), and when I realised I was starting to get involved in constant edit warring, that's when I stopped and came here. I've tried going through the usual [[WP:BRD]] procedure with the other editor, but the other editor is the one who refuses to participate in it. Anyway, I'm already leaving the contested articles alone until some sort of resolution comes from here, but would it be better to move this to the main [[WP:ANI]] and go from there? [[User:MrMoustacheMM|MrMoustacheMM]] ([[User talk:MrMoustacheMM|talk]]) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
||
::* I think this is bound for [[WP:ANI]] unfortunately. The last time this user was reported here it wasn't acted on either, and what you've outlined above is only the tip of the iceberg. Lukejordan02's editing style is to make (usually massive) changes to discographies, immediately revert back if anyone reverts him, tell people they're wrong, and delete any warnings/discussion from his Talk page. I've spent about 20 minutes looking through his edit history, and he's edit warred with at least a dozen unique editors across many discographies. The only time he ''doesn't'' get in an edit war is if no one notices his edits. --[[User:Spike Wilbury|Spike Wilbury]] ([[User talk:Spike Wilbury|talk]]) 16:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
|||
== [[User:66.185.200.1]] reported by [[User:Hipocrite]] (Result: Blocked) == |
== [[User:66.185.200.1]] reported by [[User:Hipocrite]] (Result: Blocked) == |
Revision as of 16:34, 3 June 2014
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.
- See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
- If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.
You must notify any user you have reported.
You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~
to do so.
You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
- Additional notes
- When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
- The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
- Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
- Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
- Definition of edit warring
- Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs. |
User:Bowser2500 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Decline)
- Page
- Steven Beitashour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Bowser2500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "Restoring full name"
- 01:00, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610857214 by Walter Görlitz (talk) See talk"
- 01:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610865781 by Walter Görlitz (talk) "Made-up"? Easy with your accusations there, bud. See talk"
- 01:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Citation added"
- 01:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Possibly a more reliable news outlet"
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Steven_Beitashour&curid=26913715&diff=610872554&oldid=610869372
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 01:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on Steven Beitashour. (TW)"
- 01:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* May 2014 */ Verify credibility"
- 01:57, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Steven Beitashour. (TW)"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 01:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Moving from my talk page and responding"
- 01:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* Full name */ Not RSes"
- Comments:
Editor is new and does not seem to understand discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Didn't mean to start edit warring, & the reverted edits were before the recent ones where more constructive edits have been made by both Walter and I. Sources have been added and comments have been left on Steven Beitashour's talk page.--Bowser2500 (talk) 02:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- So, how exactly are both not edit warring, Walter? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- Declined Filing party didn't respond to query, edit war has ceased. Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Perhaps when asking for information from another editor, you could actually {{ping}} that editor, use feedback, or inform them of the question in some other way.
- I was edit warring, but did not go past three reverts. My reverts were all done withing editing guidelines. When I realized that I might break 3RR, I started added templates to gain consensus from a larger community: no reverting there, which were removed, which is clearly disruptive editing. I started the discussions to attempt to resolve. I sought input from the football project to seek greater discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Another instance where an editor reverts five times, clearly breaking 3RR and it's declined because some bureaucrat decides some question is more important than editing guidelines. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I assumed you would keep an eye on your own report and not have to be pinged to go back and answer a question. And yes, getting questions answered is often pertinent before just handing out blocks. I would have declined it anyway, because you were both edit warring no matter how you paint it. Better to protect the page and allow for discussion, which can't occur at all if both parties are blocked. I'm not sure what you wish to accomplish by calling me names. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Piotrus and User:Volunteer Marek reported by User:Patriot Donbassa (Result: Protected)
Page: Poverty in Poland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Piotrus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Piotrus:
Volunteer Marek:
Comment: these two users constantly revert a sourced version to an unsourced version and justify it with OR comments at talk. Edit warring is unacceptable and so is removal of information based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT only. Nasty edit summaries like this are totally unacceptable, too.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8], [9]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Riiighhht. A user account created a week ago with about ten edits, who knows about NPOV, Wikiquette, 3RR, and to go running to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports to get their sketchy edits restored. And oh yeah, named "Patriot Donbassa", which is mangled Polish. Whose talk page comments and edits appear to be intended to start fights between people.
It's an obvious sockpuppet created for the purposes of trolling.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:02, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Patriot Donbassa (Патриот Донбасса) means 'Donbass Patriot' in Russian. Neither Polish nor mangled, my friend. One should take a closer look at Volunteer's edits accross Eastern Europe topics. He's constantly edit warring and being disruptive: [10], [11], [12]. How long can this circus go on? Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- ...who quickly found (failed) AN/I reports. No. Not a sockpuppet. Can't be. Not here to cause trouble and disruption. Gosh no. Please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- See And you are lynching Negroes. The amount of disruption you're causing in each and every su8bject you touch is a whole magnitude more serious than any problems I've caused with my 20 or so edits, all well sourced and neutral. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- ...and not even bothering to deny it. And arguing about "old stuff". Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- See And you are lynching Negroes. The amount of disruption you're causing in each and every su8bject you touch is a whole magnitude more serious than any problems I've caused with my 20 or so edits, all well sourced and neutral. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- ...who quickly found (failed) AN/I reports. No. Not a sockpuppet. Can't be. Not here to cause trouble and disruption. Gosh no. Please.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
What Volunteer Marek said. It's clearly a case of a trolling sock. First, this report has no merit (3RR rule was not broken). I became aware of this when on the article I created (poverty in Poland) I saw a problematic edit summary [13] that clearly implies that the editor's sole reason for reverting was that he followed another editor with the intent to undo his edits (the followed editor was Volunteer Marek). I reverted that inconstructive edit, and repeated it twice more as Patriot Donbass did not provide any reasonable argument for restoring it (I agree with VM that the edit is problematic, as I explained on talk). His edits to that article and talk page seem to fit the description of VM as being disruptive and aiming at creating battleground atmosphere; his edits there are neither neutral or well sources (after running out of reverts, he added another baiting, non-neutral edit - [14]). Further indication that Patriot Donbass is not an innocent newbie can be gleamed from the fact that less than 25 edits and in about one week since creating his new account, this user knows how to file a proper 3RR report, is familiar with the template warning system to issue a {{uw-ew}} warning (in his 22nd edit ever), and shows further familiarity with Wikipedia policies ([15]) as well as (and that's a clincher here) indicates familiarity with my edit history at least as far back as Feb/March when I stood for adminship. I think this is enough to see that we are dealing with a disruptive account, a sock of a more experienced user, in all likelyhood a banned one (or one created to avoid getting the puppetmaster account banned). I'd suggest blocking this account, and if one needs to look for a specific bureacratic justification, please note that this sock is primarily active in topics related to Eastern Europe, thus falling within Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- My edits to the Ukrainian topic are all neutrally worded and explained at talk. Unlike Volunteer Marek's, that add loaded language and biased claims. Compare: [16], [17]. It's clear who's following NPOV and who's adding cheap agitprop. And as far as stalking is concerned, it's Marek, who's following my edits, such as the ones I made to New Russia Party. Gubarev was a communist party member before founding the New Russia Party - what kind of a clown would seriously call him a 'far-right figure' anno 2014? It's stupid and I removed it, after a filter had prevented me from arguing the point at talk. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:36, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Your edits to Ukrainian topics are not relevant here; we are talking about you following Volunteer Marek to poverty in Poland article, edit warring there, and adding baiting, disruptive content to the article and its talk.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- (ec) See National Bolshevism. Yes there's a faction of "Communist neo-Nazis" in Russia. And that's in the article. And it's well sourced. And you're removing well sourced info to push a POV. And you probably already know all this. But all that is beside the point.
- BTW, in regard to that edit filter thing preventing some of your edits - you don't happen to be using a proxy to edit are you? That's what could be causing you problems.Volunteer Marek (talk) 10:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- @Piotrus: The content I added to Poverty in Poland was not disruptive. It was and is adequately sourced. If Marek promises not to follow my edits to the Ukrainian topic like he did today [18], then I'll avoid articles related to Poland that he edits just to avoid angering him. But I stand by my words that Marek's edits to Ukrainian topics are practically all highly one-sided. An experienced user should really have at least a pretense of following NPOV.
- @VM: where is the source saying Progressive Socialist Party of Ukraine is 'national bolshevik' or 'far-right'? Riiight. There aren't any. at least in the respective article. Avoiding emotionally loaded labels in disputed topics is really elementary. And no, I'm not using proxies. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 10:58, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Btw, it's getting besides the point here, but yes, national Bolshevism does exist but it is exactly what it is called: National Bolshevism. It's not fascism. And it's not 'far-right' either. Calling everyone you disagree with a Nazi or a fascist or far-right is a cheap rhetorical trick. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- "If Marek promises not to follow my edits to the Ukrainian topic like he did today, then I'll avoid articles related to Poland that he edits just to avoid angering him" - I don't think this admission of stalking needs further clarification. Wikipedia is not a place were editors are invited to operate using the attitude "if you leave my articles alone I will not disrupt your articles". If you have disputes with VM on some Ukrainian articles, discuss it there, DO NOT follow him to others just to revert him because you have a dispute with him somewhere else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a newby and I made a mistake. A single mistake, as I got angry. How about asking VM politely not to follow dozens of his perceived enemies around Wikipedia, too? Did you see e.g. complaint by B01010100: It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources or by Joe Bodacious: Within minutes he followed me to another article. Over the next few days, VM followed me to a variety of other articles and talk pages, initiating edit wars at two of them /.../ I believe that this may be an example of WP:HOUNDING. Or by Lokalkosmopolit: Just a few hours after my comment here, Volunteer Marek proceeded to revert my changes to an article he had never edited before. Tell me, Marek, is it your habit to perform 'revenge' edits against everyone who happens to disagree with you?.
What about that? Shall you discuss the issue on Gadu-Gadu? Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:32, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm a newby and I made a mistake. A single mistake, as I got angry. How about asking VM politely not to follow dozens of his perceived enemies around Wikipedia, too? Did you see e.g. complaint by B01010100: It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources or by Joe Bodacious: Within minutes he followed me to another article. Over the next few days, VM followed me to a variety of other articles and talk pages, initiating edit wars at two of them /.../ I believe that this may be an example of WP:HOUNDING. Or by Lokalkosmopolit: Just a few hours after my comment here, Volunteer Marek proceeded to revert my changes to an article he had never edited before. Tell me, Marek, is it your habit to perform 'revenge' edits against everyone who happens to disagree with you?.
- "If Marek promises not to follow my edits to the Ukrainian topic like he did today, then I'll avoid articles related to Poland that he edits just to avoid angering him" - I don't think this admission of stalking needs further clarification. Wikipedia is not a place were editors are invited to operate using the attitude "if you leave my articles alone I will not disrupt your articles". If you have disputes with VM on some Ukrainian articles, discuss it there, DO NOT follow him to others just to revert him because you have a dispute with him somewhere else. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Just for even-handedness let us include the other reverts:
- 09:43, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Piotrus
- 09:06, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Piotrus
- 08:56, 1 June 2014 Patriot Donbassa reverts Volunteer Marek
- 23:44, 31 May 2014 MyMoloboaccount reverts Volunteer Marek
- 23:40, 31 May 2014 MyMoloboaccount reverts Volunteer Marek
--Toddy1 (talk) 11:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, no-one is blameless here. For the record, VM's two reverts against me on an article unrelated to Poverty in Poland:
I explained the problem with those reverts above in detail. Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Another revert, this time at Alexander Prokhanov.
- 1 June 2014 . ES: ″rvt sockpuppet/stalker/troll″
My previous ES explaining my changes: fixed lead - Zavtra is: stalinist, nationalist, antisemitic. in a word - right-wing is misleading. Republican Party is right-wing. PiS is right-wing. Are they close to Zavtra (toilet) paper? Nope
VM chose to revert blindly an obvious improvement.Patriot Donbassa (talk) 11:41, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
(ec) The reference by Patriot Donbassa to "discussing on Gadu-Gadu" (a Polish IRC client) as well as this edit summary (that whole comment is an obvious troll) are both thinly veiled references to stuff from long time ago and Wikipedia history. One references an ArbCase from something like 2007, the other one the fact that MyMoloboaccount and Piotrus have known each other on Wikipedia for a long time (it's from Goethe's "Sorcerer Apprentice"). So this Patriot Donbassa person is NOT JUST sockpuppeting, trolling and stalking, they actually WANT certain editors (like myself and Piotrus) to KNOW that they are a sockpuppet and that they're engaging in WP:HARASSMENT by making these thinly veiled references which are not immediately obvious to uinvolved editors.
His little "no-one's blameless here" schtick above is just another way of saying "sure, block my throwaway account I just created a few days ago, what do I care, just please block these people I don't like to". It's a cynical piece of dishonesty. I'm sure whatever differences MyMoloboaccount and I have about the articles in question we can work them out fine without their pouring of gasoline on the fire. Note that the issue was already being addressed anyway as this discussion on my talk indicates (note the involvement of outside parties, including at least one admin)
Can someone please block this jerk already? Volunteer Marek (talk) 11:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, the trolling is obvious to us. But for an uninvolved admin, it would require at least a few minutes of investigation. Not something that is likely to happen. I recommend asking for a block at AE or ANI citing the above policies and rationale. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- User:Callanecc: Would you mind rethinking this? This is not a case of an edit war between two parties who are not talking to one another and need to be forced to talk; it's the case of a trolling sock with <50 edits disrupting an article. Me and Volunteer Marek have between us something like 300,000 edits, fifteen years of Wikipedia editing experience, and thousands of articles created, many of them on the topics of Polish economy. In other words, when we call an editor a trolling sock, which I, for once, don't do often then every two or three years, there's a chance we may know what we are talking about. Would you do us the courtesy or looking at our arguments, presented above, a bit more closely? This article doesn't need protection, it needs a single disruptive troll who started edit warring there not to improve it but to harass another editor banned from it (if not blocked from this project entirely). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also not happy with the result, but protecting a page in case of a content dispute for settling the issue is common practice. I would appreciate if Callaneck took a look at all those diffs concerning Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user conduct. At least 3 users have recently claimed Marek was harassing them, I presented diffs of VM revenge edit warring against me on a number of articles today. I have justified my edits in the Ukrainian/Russian topics, see: Talk:New_Russia_Party, Talk:Alexander Prokhanov. Marek just reverts his perceived enemies until you're blue in the face. It's him trolling, not me! Just read my arguments at those 2 talk pages! I'm not the only one complaining about his daily misconduct. Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- One of those three accounts you are saying had concerns about VM editing has been indef'ed (Lokalkosmopolit (talk · contribs)), so it appears VM was quite right in his view of them. 95% of contribution of another one is (this year at least) limited to discussion space and AN(I), a good sign of another troublemaker. Not the best character witnesses you could call upon... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Yes, I noticed that Local was banned for comments concerning Islam. VM and Local however had disputes concerning the Ukraine/Russia matter, so VM was hardly correct in 'prophesying' Local's problems. The fact is: VM is the real troublemaker in Eastern European topics, Ukraine/Russia in particular and should be banned from editing this topic. And drop please those edit count things, shall you? Editcountitis can be fatal. No-one has the right to treat constructive users like garbage just because they edit WP less often. Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Patriot Donbassa - you probably do not know this, but making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against Wikipedia policies and goals. Unless you have specific evidence that Marek has "enemies", you should not be making such statements. please read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I provided 3 diffs from 3 different users (I admit that I don't know them personally of course!) that had recently demonstrably (diffs available!) complained of harassment by a user, whose today's conduct I also characterized as harassing me and disrupting totally constructive work I was doing in Ukraine/Russia-related articles. Diffs are there. Explanations are here and at talk pages. How is that not 'evidence'? What else is needed?Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you search through any long-standing and very active editor's history you can easily find complaints about him/her. This is especially true if you accept at face-value complaints from editors who were later blocked as a result of their conduct. My perception is that Patriot Donbassa is clutching at straws.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- All right, let us concentrate on today and leave the older complaints aside, as I have neither the time nor desire to dig myself into all those details. What VM was doing today can be seen here ([19]) and here [20]. He reached the first of those by following my edits (no previous edits by him to this article). He initiated an edit war against totally legitimate improvements in terms of BLP, NPOV and encyclopedic style. I explained my views in great detail. VM was unable to offer any explanation for his revert warring, any substantiated objection to my edits. And now he claims I should be banned ASAP! Also, his last edit (revert of Lokalkosmopolit's months old edit) is similarly 'illiterate' from the political science/NPOV perspective. I'm willing to explain this really minor but telling thing in detail, but what's the point? None of you wants to get your hands tied by reprimanding a user whose block log looks like it does but who has lots of powerful allies on-Wiki. Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- This edit that Patriot Donbassa referred to above certainly was not a legitimate edit. The information was an accurate reflection of what the source said, and Patriot Donbassa changed it to say something quite different.--Toddy1 (talk) 15:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- All right, let us concentrate on today and leave the older complaints aside, as I have neither the time nor desire to dig myself into all those details. What VM was doing today can be seen here ([19]) and here [20]. He reached the first of those by following my edits (no previous edits by him to this article). He initiated an edit war against totally legitimate improvements in terms of BLP, NPOV and encyclopedic style. I explained my views in great detail. VM was unable to offer any explanation for his revert warring, any substantiated objection to my edits. And now he claims I should be banned ASAP! Also, his last edit (revert of Lokalkosmopolit's months old edit) is similarly 'illiterate' from the political science/NPOV perspective. I'm willing to explain this really minor but telling thing in detail, but what's the point? None of you wants to get your hands tied by reprimanding a user whose block log looks like it does but who has lots of powerful allies on-Wiki. Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- If you search through any long-standing and very active editor's history you can easily find complaints about him/her. This is especially true if you accept at face-value complaints from editors who were later blocked as a result of their conduct. My perception is that Patriot Donbassa is clutching at straws.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I provided 3 diffs from 3 different users (I admit that I don't know them personally of course!) that had recently demonstrably (diffs available!) complained of harassment by a user, whose today's conduct I also characterized as harassing me and disrupting totally constructive work I was doing in Ukraine/Russia-related articles. Diffs are there. Explanations are here and at talk pages. How is that not 'evidence'? What else is needed?Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Patriot Donbassa - you probably do not know this, but making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against Wikipedia policies and goals. Unless you have specific evidence that Marek has "enemies", you should not be making such statements. please read WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:24, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I'm also not happy with the result, but protecting a page in case of a content dispute for settling the issue is common practice. I would appreciate if Callaneck took a look at all those diffs concerning Volunteer Marek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) user conduct. At least 3 users have recently claimed Marek was harassing them, I presented diffs of VM revenge edit warring against me on a number of articles today. I have justified my edits in the Ukrainian/Russian topics, see: Talk:New_Russia_Party, Talk:Alexander Prokhanov. Marek just reverts his perceived enemies until you're blue in the face. It's him trolling, not me! Just read my arguments at those 2 talk pages! I'm not the only one complaining about his daily misconduct. Donbass Patriot Man (talk) 13:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- User:Callanecc: Would you mind rethinking this? This is not a case of an edit war between two parties who are not talking to one another and need to be forced to talk; it's the case of a trolling sock with <50 edits disrupting an article. Me and Volunteer Marek have between us something like 300,000 edits, fifteen years of Wikipedia editing experience, and thousands of articles created, many of them on the topics of Polish economy. In other words, when we call an editor a trolling sock, which I, for once, don't do often then every two or three years, there's a chance we may know what we are talking about. Would you do us the courtesy or looking at our arguments, presented above, a bit more closely? This article doesn't need protection, it needs a single disruptive troll who started edit warring there not to improve it but to harass another editor banned from it (if not blocked from this project entirely). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
User:89.155.180.224 reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Iggy Azalea discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 89.155.180.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 23:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "What's the point of including countries with no chart info? UK R&B is more relevant than France, Germany and Austria considering the album/singles didn't chart there.... Most urban artists HAVE the R&B/hip-hop charts listed on their wikipedia discography,"
- 22:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "Updated US album sales, some singles peaks w/ sources and removed countries with no chart information."
- Consecutive edits made from 21:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC) to 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- 21:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""
- 21:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */ Updated sources for current positions."
- 01:18, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""
- 20:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC) ""
- 13:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "/* As lead artist */"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
ConnieGB has been blocked recently for edit warring and I have warned 89.155.180.224 about violating WP:BADCHARTS. He hasn't listened. I recommend 72 hours for 89 and a week for Connie. Launchballer 17:04, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Launchballer Thanks for notice me. The user anom was revert for other editors, see [21]. Please, can you explain to the user that only countries can be on the tables according to the format. Thanks. Regards. Connie (A.K) (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Template:Launchballer hasn't existed since 2009, you mean Launchballer. I have explained to the user on his talk page - he didn't listen, and that's why we're here.--Launchballer 17:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:51, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
User:ConnieGB reported by User:Launchballer (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Iggy Azalea discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- ConnieGB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 16:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC) "only countries can be there. Fix"
- 22:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""words to watch" WP:NPOV 10 countries completed"
- Consecutive edits made from 22:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC) to 22:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- 22:16, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "undid edits by 89.155.180.224 unexplained changes"
- 22:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "m."
- Consecutive edits made from 20:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) to 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
- 20:19, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "undid to last version by Mayast"
- 20:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "update"
- 20:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC) ""
- 20:40, 31 May 2014 (UTC) "not entry o media control"
- 21:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "WP:NPOV, don't add charts irrelevants please. Just countries on the table"
- Consecutive edits made from 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) to 21:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- 21:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "not entry on media control"
- 21:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "fix"
- Consecutive edits made from 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) to 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "undid"
- 18:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "updates and a chart"
- 18:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "change, not used"
- 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC) "+"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Blocked – for a period of 5 days.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Snuffie18 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Locked)
Page: Misandry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Snuffie18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [22]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing discussion at Talk:Misandry#Relevance_problem
Comments:
EWing User is an WP:SPA set to WP:RGW. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:31, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- (Non-administrator comment) WP:RGW and WP:SPA, while relevant essays, are not policy. I acknowledge that the user edit warred and that's what this discussion is primarily about. I have left a notice on their talk stating for themselves to self revert, at the advice of WP:3RR, in a move to hopefully have the reviewing admin become more lenient on them. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I will refrain from editing on misandry or related topics in the nearby future. (Snuffie18 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
- @Snuffie18: It's not so much that you're editing them that's the problem. The reason of this noticeboard is for edit warring, and breaking of the bright line of three revert rule, which states that an editor should perform no more than three reverts on an article, no matter if they were different content, per day. Why I noticed on your talk page for you to self revert, is that self reverting, even though you're already on the noticeboard, demonstrates that you acknowledged that you broke the rule, and are hoping for leniency from the reviewing admin as it shows that you understand what you did wrong, and won't do it again. It doesn't guarantee a non-block, but it will be acknowledged and put into the equation on whether this behavior merits a block. As well, being a single purpose account does not mean you're not allowed to edit those topics. In fact, as long as you don't edit war, perform Neutral point of view contributions, and act with civility, among abiding by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to edit those topics. Tutelary (talk) 20:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
- I will refrain from editing on misandry or related topics in the nearby future. (Snuffie18 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
In my opinion politics should be kept as far away from information and facts as possible. That's what led to the frustration with the misandry page in the first place, because I felt there it was pushed away from npov by two users. And that's why I won't edit on it for at least a while, nor on anyhting related. As for the 3 revert rule, I believe that I didn't make more than 3 reverts within 24 hours. (Snuffie18 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2014 (UTC))
- Note. The article has been fully protected four a month by Mike V. Snuffie18, I'm not going to block you, but I srongly urge you to read WP:3RR carefully. You in fact made four reverts in 24 hours as revert is defined in the policy. Your first edit at 7:47 UTC is a revert. The other three are obvious.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
User:LogFTW reported by User:Sopher99 (Result: Blocked; tbanned)
Page: Template:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LogFTW (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diffs of the user's reverts:
- At 11:49 the user reverted an edit made at 10:45 by another user [28]
- At 12:18 the user reverted an edit made at 12:07 by me [29]
- At 17:52 the user reverted an edit made at 13:08 by another user [30]
- At 21:16 the user reverted edits made at 19:03 and 20:08 by both another user and me respectively [31]
This page is under 1 revert rule protection, so any 2 of these diffs is a violation.
Furthermore the user has already received 1 revert rule sanctions warning on his talkpage. Sopher99 (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note. Per WP:SCWGS, LogFTW has been blocked for 48 hours. Sopher99, who violated WP:1RR, has been topic banned for three months.--Bbb23 (talk) 08:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:84.120.248.46 reported by User:Valenciano (Result: Blocked)
- Page
- Union, Progress and Democracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- 84.120.248.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 17:57, 1 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611068419 by Valenciano (talk) These translations are incompatible according to the explanation, included in the article, about the party name meaning."
- 18:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611110189 by Sfs90 (talk)"
- 18:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC) ""
- 11:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611132074 by Valenciano (talk) Ridiculous excuse to revert my edit."
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- Comments:
Constant edit warring on the page. The user was warned on their talk page about WP:3RR and are fully familiar with it, since they posted a 3RR warning on User_talk:Sfs90#Union.2C_Progress_and_Democracy_2. The i.p. is also single mindedly focused on the name of the party, a concern they share with blocked sockmaster User:Javier93h. There is a good possibility that these accounts are one and the same. Valenciano (talk) 12:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 13:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
User:174.152.185.161 reported by User:AlmostGrad (Result: )
Page 1: Peoria Charter Coach Company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page 2: Lincoln Land express (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 174.152.185.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 174.146.29.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), User-multi error: "174.146.5.102" is not a valid project or language code (help).
Previous version reverted to:
For Page 1 (Peoria Charter Coach Company): [32]
For Page 2 (Lincoln Land express): [33]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
For Page 1 (Peoria Charter Coach Company):
For Page 2 (Lincoln Land express):
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Not given, since it's not a 3RR yet and is unlikely to become one, because the same person seems to be reverting from different IPs, so no single IP is likely to violate 3RR. I, however, have reverted the IPs twice already, and will soon be in violation of 3RR if I continue reverting.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None, since I don't understand how it is a BLP issue, and the AfD template was malformed, without any deletion rationale. Also, I have a CoI with Suburban Express, so I would rather not engage directly with this person and let others deal with this.
Comments:
A series of IPs (174.146.29.31, 174.146.5.102, 174.152.185.161, maybe others), likely block-evading socks of ArbCom-blocked User:Arri at Suburban Express, the owner of Suburban Express, are edit-warring on the articles of competitors Peoria Charter Coach Company and Lincoln Land express, and also editing the Suburban Express page. An SPI has been filed by User:Gulugawa. AlmostGrad (talk) 15:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
A kind Attention needed for B. R. Ambedkar Page (Father of Indian Constitution) (Result: Blocked}}
Some people are rverting the changes of this page which is highly nonconstructive and disrespectful to this man Dr.Ambedkar who is the father of Indian institution.
The Father of India Constitution (Dr.Ambedkar's page).
First Law minister of India - Dr.Ambedkar . (Is Indian Lawyer a better name?) It should be Jurist. Father of Indian Constitution (Largest Indian Democracy) - Dr. Ambedkar . (Is this line to be removed?) Philosopher - He wrote several books on Buddhism such as Buddha or Karl Marx, Buddha and his Dhamma etc., Riddles in Hinduism etc. (Words were removed)
Barack Obama praised him when he came to India. Noble Prize Winner Amartya Sen calls him his father in Economics. (Economist) The Table concering his writings and speeches were removed without any proper justification. Siddheart (talk) 20:19, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Looking at this page it apears that the only person
in breechlikely to breechofthe 3RR rule appears to be yourself. Agree it needs looking at but it appears you might have shot yourself in the foot here. Amortias (T)(C) 20:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)- Also can someone move this into the correct format as it appears t have been added to the previous article instead of a new section - im unsure on restricitons for reordering this page myself.Amortias (T)(C) 20:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Blocked Siddheart for 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Tiller54 reported by User:NazariyKaminski (Result: Locked)
Page: Joni Ernst (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tiller54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Tiller54 telling others to stop edit warring: [45]
Comments:
Tiller54 and Cwobeel are tag teaming anyone who disagrees with their edits to the Joni Ernst article. They just revert and tell people they are wrong.--NK (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
- Page protected (full) for one week. So many editors in the battle, and they probably should all be blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Cla68 reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: Article locked)
- Page
- Roosh V (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- User being reported
- Cla68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Previous version reverted to
- Diffs of the user's reverts
- 22:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "This is a BLP and pejorative labels are thus avoided. The citations don't support putting this pejorative a label on this person."
- 22:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611298952 by PearlSt82 (talk)remove BLP violation as explained on talk page. 3rr doesn't apply when protecting a BLP"
- 23:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611302403 by 31.205.21.96 (talk)reverting pejorative label, per WP:BLP. 3RR does not apply"
- 02:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611316214 by EvergreenFir (talk)revert of pejorative term from a BLP. 3RR does not apply"
- Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
- 01:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Roosh V */ new section"
- Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
- 01:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Sex tourist */"
- Comments:
User is asserting BLP protection despite the term not being overly pejorative, sourced, and in the article from its creation. User refuses to engage in dialogue. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Result - Page protected (full) for three days. Can folks please lay out their arguements on the talk page and please seek a broader input - BLP noticeboard etc. as a priority? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- NB: if anyone reverts without a developing consensus after three days, would strongly consider blocks at that point. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:32, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for attending to this. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Whoops, forgot to lock article - locked now. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Thank you for attending to this. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Lukejordan02 reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: )
Pages: (just listing a few of the many) Meshuggah discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Koloss (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Blackwater Park (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Still Life (Opeth album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Heritage (Opeth album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
And a ton more, unfortunately.
User being reported: Lukejordan02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous versions reverted to:
Meshuggah discography
[46]
Diffs of the user's reverts: Meshuggah discography
Most of the above, I explained to the editor that sources are needed to add information, and if the editor removes information and that too is reverted, then discussion is needed. A couple of times, the editor did start discussing these issues (either on the article's talk page or more often on mine), but in the case of Heritage (Opeth album), the editor went ahead with their preferred edits despite not waiting enough time for other editors to weigh in.
- [59]
- [60] (Editor starts a discussion. Great!)
- [61] (Editor immediately reverts to preferred version. Not great.)
- [62] (After I explain that more than two editors' opinions should be sought before making changes, editor waits about a day, then reverts to preferred version yet again.)
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63] (see edit summary)
[64] (see edit summary)
User talk:MrMoustacheMM (most of it right now)
[65] (this editor likes to remove warnings and discussions from their talk page, but take a quick look through; here are a couple from me specifically: [66] [67])
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Heritage (Opeth album)#Genres (lasted about a day)
Comments:
I tried to help the editor learn about Wikipedia policy. Mainly, using reliable sources per WP:V. I provided links to useful pages (WP:MOSALBUM, WP:ALBUM/SOURCES, WP:BRD, WP:CONSENSUS, etc), but instead of reading them, the editor continued to argue with me on my talk page, and continued to edit war. I tried being patient, I assumed good faith (this user clearly isn't a vandal), I tried to explain to this editor that WP:V is a very important policy on Wikipedia, but they constantly pushed their own opinions as fact:
"Listen, just listen and try and understand what I am saying and my point of view as a massive fan"; "unsourced or sourced I don't give a shit"; "Most of Wikipedia is unsourced" (as justification for adding more unsourced information); "anyone who knows Opeth knows that all of there albums are labelled prog rock"; "there are exceptions to those rules [on Wikipedia] and this [adding unsourced genres] should be one of them".
This editor is a classic WP:GENREWARRIOR (essay, I know, used just as a convenient description), who thinks they are the leading authority on whatever it is they are editing, and how could another editor possibly disagree with them? Thing is, occasionally the editor makes some good points and/or good edits, but they don't wait long enough to allow discussion to change consensus, or they make a dozen or more edits across multiple articles, and it's hard to keep up with the few good edits among the large number of undiscussed/unsourced changes or removal of sourced info or whatever. Even earlier today, I thought the user was going to start working within WP policy, but instead they went and made a bunch more of those poor edits across another set of articles. At this point I realised that I was being pulled into the same edit war spiral, so I decided to stop and come here instead. And just to show that I'm not the only editor who has had issues with this editor's work: [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73].
Anyway, sorry for the long write-up, but I wanted to make sure I had provided enough information. I'm hoping a temporary block will help this user slow down, and not be so impatient to get their edits made, and give them time to read important pages like WP:V. Maybe it won't, and we'll be back here again soon, but it's worth a try. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 05:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
I already explained to him that, when he said I had issues with previous editors it wasn't true 68 I removed a template and apologised after, 70 the user never disagreed with me and we are currently sorting it out via the albums talk page, 71 wasn't a disagreement he was giving me advice which I listened to, 72 me and bretonbrequet spent hours sorting out 3 major discographies, and 73 was me just trying to add a referenced genre. I am not a genre warrior or whatever he is branding me as up until the last couple of days I haven't even edited genres on Wikipedia. On the meshuggah pages I removed extreme metal because it isn't a genre as I spoke to him on his talk page which he gave me a 4 word answer before telling me to stop bothering him and on the opeth pages some pages have unsourced genres on there which he seems fine about but others he doesn't. He has tried to quote me and tried to make me look bad when my intentions were nothing but good. I never pushed my own opinion as fact if you look on any opeth related site you will see there albums are labelled as progressive rock calling some of the albums progressive rock and not others is misleading to readers. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
"Listen, just listen and try and understand what I am saying and my point of view as a massive fan"; "unsourced or sourced I don't give a shit"; "Most of Wikipedia is unsourced" (as justification for adding more unsourced information); "anyone who knows Opeth knows that all of there albums are labelled prog rock"; "there are exceptions to those rules [on Wikipedia] and this [adding unsourced genres] should be one of them".
Regarding this I never meant it that it is ok to add unsourced info I know how important referencing your work is I was trying to break the conversation into bits when I said that I never said adding unsourced info should be an exception to the rules I meant in cases where it is quiet obvious through listening to what it is. This user seems happy to have certain pages labelled progressive rock but not others when they are all of the same genre plus he is happy to have heritage to be listed as progressive metal even though the so called reference backing it up isn't referring to the album but just a song on the album which I mentioned to him twice on different occasions to no reply. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:12, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The comment above and a ton more unfortunately is referring to all the meshuggah pages which I changed them all free removing extreme metal as a genre as it is not a genre. I am here trying to cooperate because blocking me isn't going to solve the problem as the problems with these pages will remain and I am a useful editor as I have removed multiple vandalism from WWE pages this past week and always try to update with reliable sources. Lukejordan02 (talk) 08:26, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note. What sticks out like a very sore thumb when looking at the revision history of the listed pages is that both the filer and the reported user are edit warring. Maybe if both users stop editing the articles things might get better, but at this point the only action I would take is to block them both. I'm not going to sort out who's "worse" when both have mishandled the content disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- In my defense, I'm not removing sourced material, I'm not adding unsourced material (ie I'm following WP:V), and when I realised I was starting to get involved in constant edit warring, that's when I stopped and came here. I've tried going through the usual WP:BRD procedure with the other editor, but the other editor is the one who refuses to participate in it. Anyway, I'm already leaving the contested articles alone until some sort of resolution comes from here, but would it be better to move this to the main WP:ANI and go from there? MrMoustacheMM (talk) 16:28, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- I think this is bound for WP:ANI unfortunately. The last time this user was reported here it wasn't acted on either, and what you've outlined above is only the tip of the iceberg. Lukejordan02's editing style is to make (usually massive) changes to discographies, immediately revert back if anyone reverts him, tell people they're wrong, and delete any warnings/discussion from his Talk page. I've spent about 20 minutes looking through his edit history, and he's edit warred with at least a dozen unique editors across many discographies. The only time he doesn't get in an edit war is if no one notices his edits. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
User:66.185.200.1 reported by User:Hipocrite (Result: Blocked)
Page: Thomas Piketty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.185.200.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [74]
Diffs of the user's reverts:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [75]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Thomas_Piketty#Reception_section
Comments: The proposal to include the misleading statement regarding the FT article has been soundly rejected on the BLP. Hipocrite (talk) 12:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- Note I have blocked the IP address not so much because of the edit-warring at the article (where they seem to have made no more than three reverts – this edit does not appear to be a revert), as their actions at User talk:Hipocrite (where they violated WP:3RR unambiguously, and as part of what seems to have been a harassment or intimidation campaign – see [76], [77], [78] and others). SuperMarioMan ( talk ) 15:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
- The edit you link to is, in fact, a revert - it reverts [79]. Hipocrite (talk) 15:53, 3 June 2014 (UTC)