Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
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 Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring. Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR) An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
Click here to create a new report

User:Rarevogel reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: Indef)

Page

Armenian Genocide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Rarevogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "Could you please explain why you remove sourced content which is crucial to understanding the background?"
2. 11:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC) "People reading this article would be made to believe that the Ottomans were sending the Armenians to death camps to be exterminated, Nazi-style. This article is utter propaganda. It relies too much on Amenian sources. I have added some background facts."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Fresh from a two-day block for violating 1RR s/he starts another edit-war and is at revert #2. Previous report on this user is still on this noticeboard and is currently #3 from the top. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a 1RR violation, since each of the listed edits is trying to restore material he was warring about earlier in April. We could try to go through discretionary sanctions and propose a topic ban, but the editor's persistence suggests he wouldn't be willing to follow the terms of a ban. How can we keep this sequence from going on forever? I'd favor an indefinite block, but would listen to other ideas. EdJohnston (talk) 04:17, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor and Administrator who has encountered this editor a number of times, I have no reason to believe that Rarevogel can change. Take a look at the editor's talk page. Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Agree with EdJohnston. Never met the editor before, but a look at their block log, which includes personal attackssource misuses, block evasion, and warring, strongly suggests that an indefinite block is in order.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 13:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely – This report was open for two days and I hoped the editor might respond. When someone is this persistent we can't be optimistic that they will negotiate with others or recognize the problem they are causing. Any admin may lift this block if they become convinced the editor will follow policy in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

It is indicative of the disruption this user is used to create that he did not even bother to respond to the generous conditional offer on his talkpage prior to being indeffed. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Human3015 reported by User:Lukeno94 (Result: Blocked 72 hours )

Page

Human rights abuses in Jammu and Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Human3015 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660096606 by Lukeno94 (talk) this issue has been widely discussed in talk, please see talk page. Except 1/2 POV users, everyone has consensus. Please read talk page., long discussion"
2. 18:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660094673 by Mar4d (talk) revert of sourced material, don't indulge in edit war, groupism."
3. 17:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "added more citations by Human rights watch accusing Pakistan too. consensus made on talk. Read talk page. Discuss there before deleting highly sourced matter"
4. 17:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660090481 by TopGun (talk) unexplained revert., see the talk page for earlier discussion on this issue. Don't revert sourced material."
5. 07:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659983004 by Kashmiri (talk) don't revert sourced matter, see talk page. "Human Rights Watch" accused Pakistan."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

[1]

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[2]

Comments:

Open and shut case; reverting four separate editors without gaining any consensus, and using bogus edit summaries as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Human3015 was blocked very recently on 23 April for edit warring at Indian subcontinent. The user still does not seem to have developed an understanding of 3RR, making five reverts and undoing 4 different editors within a day at this article. As in the previous block, there's the same attitude - constant warring, refusal to use the talk page, and not accommodating alternative views. Like last time, this time he was also notified of 3RR and asked to self-revert, and he chose not to. This is as damning as it gets for total disregard of 3RR. Mar4d (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• here is long discussion where final decision was to write section on Pakistan. Kindly read it if you have time. Some POV people kept on reverting highly sourced matter without reading whole talk page.
• That section has citations of Human rights watch that Pakistan does human rights violations by supporting militants in Kashmir. And that report clearly mentions that.
• Some users whose user page shows they are from Pakistan always revert it. They deny even sourced matter. Read the talk page again.
• Long discussion on same issue has been already done, it was two day long discussion and whatever I wrote has valid sources. --Human3015 18:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Two day discussion? That's nothing. In fact, for something clearly this controversial, it's nowhere near sufficient. You also allude to a consensus that does not exist in the slightest. You were discussing an edit that had about 1.5k of content; this one is FOUR times that as well. Oh, and sending me bogus edit warring notices in your position does not help you one jot. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I will elaborate it.

• Here is my first revert I reverted user Kashmiri : His name suggests that he is from Kashmir and many Kashmiris support Pakistan so this user will not see talk page or will not think anything and will directly revert anything written against Pakistan even if it is highly sourced.
• My second revert User TopGun reverted Me : He has been involved with me several times. He is also from Pakistan(his profile says, he want Kashmir in Pakistan soon) and he was so enthusiastic that he not even gave edit summary to his revert. He just can't tolerate anything written against Pakistan even of it is sourced and highly discussed on Talk. But I reverted him adding two more citations. See above.
• My third revert I reverted Mar4d: Mar4d also involved with me earlier many times. His profile also says he is from Pakistan. He also can't see anything against Pakistan. I will give an Example. read here Mar4d's old edit where he wrote "Kashmiri militants" or "Kashmiri designated terrorists by UN" as "Freedom Fighters". Means he edit wikipedia with that mentality and he also can't see anything against Pakistan even if it is highly sourced.

• TopGun and Mar4d usually work in group and I was got blocked for 48 hours very recently for edit warring with same two guys on page Indian subcontinent. They always work in group to get other users blocked which can be threat for their hidden agenda.
• Hope admin will study this matter deeply. And I'm ready to get blocked because I have broken 3RR rule and I accept my mistake.

'I AM OFF --Human3015 19:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Everything is not a conspiracy. This has more to do with your attitude and your approach to dealing with content disputes. With a might makes right attitude like that, where everyone else is wrong and you are right, you can't go very far unfortunately. Mar4d (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Human3015, don't edit war even if you think you're right. I quote the Wikipedia:Edit warring policy, to which you have been repeatedly linked: "Note that an editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring, whether or not the edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." Frankly, I think you ought to have got this clear in your mind the last time you were blocked for edit warring. Accusations of other people 'working in group to get you blocked' are unconvincing and inappropriate, please read WP:AGF. Bishonen | talk 19:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC).

User:‎Wildthang22 reported by User:Ebyabe (Result: )

Page: St. Augustine, Florida (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Wildthang22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [4]
2. [5]
3. [6]
4. [7]
5. [8]
6. [9]
7. [10]
8. [11]
9. [12]
10. [13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15]

Comments:
User presents their point of view, then reverts to their preferred version while consensus still not achieved. There may be weight issues, but they are not even being addressed. Other uninvolved parties would be appreciated to help resolve this. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - State of the Union ‖ 19:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Note: Continuing edit-warring even after warning given. Also may be an WP:SPA, as they have only made edits to the St. Augustine article. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:124.180.153.119 reported by User:Anders Feder (Result: Blocked)

Page: Israeli–Syrian ceasefire line incidents during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 124.180.153.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [17]
2. [18]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [19]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No.

Comments:

The user is an IP editor who appears to be in breach of the 1RR restriction in place on Syrian Civil War related articles.[20] The editor has solely made pro-Zionistic/anti-Palestinian edits since it began editing yesterday.[21]--Anders Feder (talk) 19:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 1 week. Appears to be an WP:ADVOCACY account. Alerted to the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. EdJohnston (talk) 00:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: Blocked)

Page: Aleksandr Dugin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Benjamin.Franklin.1706 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is a single-purpose account whose only purpose is the remove the statement that Aleksandr Dugin is known for his fascist views. All his/her edits are marked minor. He/she has never posted on the talk page.

Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 15:01, 29 April 2015
2. Revision as of 15:08, 29 April 2015
3. Revision as of 15:25, 29 April 2015
4. Revision as of 15:29, 29 April 2015
5. Revision as of 18:32, 29 April 2015
6. Revision as of 16:05, 30 April 2015

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 12:21, 30 April 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been numerous discussions concerning the statement that Dugin is known for his fascist views on Talk:Aleksandr Dugin. I expect that User:Benjamin.Franklin.1706 participated in them as an IP editor or under a different ID.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:David Corriveau & James Corley reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: Indef)

Page

Dell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

David Corriveau & James Corley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143565 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
2. 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143397 by Joseph2302 (talk) Don't be an idiot, search for c-r72Nr8A44"
3. 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143297 by Joseph2302 (talk)"
4. 23:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660143153 by ClueBot NG (talk)"
5. 23:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 23:08, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
2. 23:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
3. 23:10, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Dell. (TW)"
4. 23:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Dell. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced content, ignoring my warnings about unsourced content and edit warring. This user is suspected as a sockpuppet, but if not then their edit warring, and edit summaries calling me an idiot should lead to a block. As I already explained, WP:VERIFY means they have to provide a source for their claims. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:14, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Materialscientist (talk) 23:16, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

User:LLArrow reported by User:Gloss (Result: Blocked)

Page: American Horror Story: Hotel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and American Horror Story (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: on American Horror Story and on American Horror Story: Hotel

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. AHS: Hotel revert 1 - falsely referred to the edit as vandalism
2. AHS: Hotel revert 2
3. AHS: Hotel revert 3

1. American Horror Story revert 1 - again falsely calling it vandalism
2. American Horror Story revert 2 - and again
3. American Horror Story revert 3

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning given and very quickly reverted

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User began a talk page discussion after all of the reverting and after my warning.

Comments:
LLArrow was blocked for edit warring on the exact same article for 24 hours very recently. Has not learned a thing and continues to edit war. Neither article has the user passing 3 reverts in 24 hours (stopped at 3 on each), but this is the edit warring noticeboard and the user is clearly edit warring on these two articles. A 1-revert self-restriction was proposed to the user in the past but they declined. Reverting my warning and continuing to revert again after it shows that they're not willing to stop edit warring. Gloss 04:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

I know I should not engage in edit wars with vandalizing IP's, but I was under the assumption that it was not considered edit warring, when it's a case of vadelization. I plead with Gloss to stop this unfounded vendetta towards me. They watch my actions like a hawk, it's borderline creepy and hounding. Thanks and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 18:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. It's not very long since LLArrow was last here at AN3. He has been reverting things that he claims to be vandalism which actually are *not* vandalism. It's taking him a long time to come up the learning curve on policy, if we judge by a prior discussion at ANI (28 Feb 2015). The common element on these cases is him doing a lot of reverts that he claims to be justified by policy, but actually are not justified. EdJohnston (talk) 19:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MugenDarkness reported by User:Random86 (Result: 24 hours)

Pages

TVXQ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) also TVXQ albums discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (please see merged report)

User being reported

MugenDarkness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 14:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 13:56, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 09:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 09:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 08:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
7. 07:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
8. 06:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "General note: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ. (TW)"
2. 07:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User is edit warring across multiple articles and will not stop adding unsourced information. Dr.K. gave warnings as well. An IP-hopping editor was making the same edits before the page was protected for three days. Random86 (talk) 09:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Note: here they have also just been warned about adding copyrighted material at that page. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:MugenDarkness reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: ) (Merged report)

Page

TVXQ albums discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

MugenDarkness (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 09:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 09:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 09:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. 09:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 08:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on TVXQ . (TW★TW)"
2. 08:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ . (TW★TW)"
3. 09:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Final warning: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on TVXQ. (TW★TW)"
4. 09:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Copyright violation on TVXQ. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This is a separate report which was merged with the one about TVXQ Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 17:57, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clear reverts, was warned. I see that he's done the same previously with IPs; let me know if semi=protection is needed. Kuru (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Travelbybus reported by User:RolandR (Result: 48 hours)

Page

United New Democratic Party (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Travelbybus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:24, 29 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 656423088 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
2. 13:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660018691 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
3. 14:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660062481 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
4. 14:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660062722 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
5. 14:24, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660062997 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
6. 14:27, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063405 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
7. 14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063668 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
8. 14:29, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063772 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
9. 14:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660063875 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
10. 14:32, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660064137 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
11. 14:37, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660065003 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
12. 14:38, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660065078 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"
13. 02:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660066784 by 117.53.77.84 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Similar behaviour on New Progressive Party (South Korea), Korea Democratic Party, Second conflict in the Goryeo–Khitan War, Democratic Republican Party (South Korea), Japan Restoration Party and many more articles. Editor would appear to be a sock of serial puppeteer Greekboy12345er6. RolandR (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Obvious massive edit war; was warned. Not sure on the sock claim, best to resolve at SPI (where you've already added it). Kuru (talk) 19:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

User:‎Tzowu reported by User:Tuvixer (Result: )

Page: Economy of Croatia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tzowu (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:

1. [23]
2. [24]
3. [25]
4. [26]
5. [27]
6. [28]
7. [29]

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

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

Comments:We all need a constructive discussion. I began a talk-page discussion, and I invited him to join the discussion. Despite this, he continued to edit-war. He has changed and reverted the article without the consensus. We can have a constructive discussion and reach a agreement on the talk page, but is seems that he does not want that.

Lol, so this is why you were disrupting my edits on the Economy of Croatia article, to get me banned :D. First you ask me to shorten the article, then revert what I did to report me. However, you made one mistake in your low actions, there is still no more than 3 reverts on that page, while the stuff I removed on those edits you linked was actually material that I added previously. I can't say that I'm surprised by this, it's just lame. Tzowu (talk) 13:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please you have started to edit-war, and now you are what, trying to play a fool? I have tried to discuss the issue on the talk page but you ignored and made the changes anyways. Everyone can see that.

Yea, sure, you were so constructive in your comments and thoroughly explained your issues with my edits and never even thought about an edit-war, while "I ignored you". "Everyone can see that." Tzowu (talk) 13:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You have violated the rules, and the administrators can see that.--Tuvixer (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Here are also two examples where recently Tozwu has tried to start a edit war:

1. [32]
2. [33] --Tuvixer (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, so when you start reverting me without explanation when I actually remove content that I added to fulfil your request it's not an edit war, and when I revert your unexplained removal of well sourced content it is an edit war? Tzowu (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You can lie all you want but the administrators can see what you are doing. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

And what do my parents have with our discussion? [34] Tzowu (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment (non admin observation) Tuvixer is involved in edit warring. A topic ban is needed. AlbinoFerret 14:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Additionally Timbouctou is involved in edit warring with Tuvixer on the same page.

Timbouctou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of users reverts

1. [35]
2. [36]
3. [37]
4. [38]
5. [39]
6. [40]
7. [41]
8. [42]
9. [43]

I dont edit this page, but was canvassed about it. AlbinoFerret 14:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I have notified Timbouctou diff AlbinoFerret 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is a mess that goes well beyond the edit warring of one editor, I'm still looking at the history, but I'm considering bringing it to AN/I or AE. For now the article is fully protected. Monty₈₄₅ 14:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Monty845 I agree that this is far beyond simple edit warring, there are civility issues and I am sure other things. I think your idea of moving it to AN/I is a good one. AlbinoFerret 15:12, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please Monty845 can you make timbouctou to stop harassing me? In the first days I only edited the articles related to the next elections in Croatia, but then someone has called me to a discussion and I saw that I can edit other articles and that here are some really mean users who are trying to change some articles just because of their political preference, so I started editing other articles, I improved some articles and created new one regarding the government a and the parliament, but all that time timbouctou or someone else, with no reason, have reverted my edits and have called me by names, I really felt then and feel now awful, I live in a liberal city and have never met so mena people, and I have always been thought not to tolerate those who are not tolerant. I really don't know all the rules of Wikipedia and they are many, I just wanted to improve some articles. I am really sorry because I broke the rules, it will never happen again. I have reported timbouctou before for a obvious 3RR, but the report was ignored, so I really don't know how to handle this kind of harassment. Tnx. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• I have made a general AN/I report on the incident at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Privatization_in_Croatia. I don't know what the resolution will be, but you may want to ask there, as it will probably be where this is resolved. I would suggest we suspend this report pending an outcome from AN/I, because as mentioned above, I think the issue goes beyond just edit warring. Monty₈₄₅ 15:30, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi reported by User:MaranoFan (Result: no action)

Page: Title (Meghan Trainor album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Winkelvi (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:

1. [44]
2. [45]
3. [46]
4. [47]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [48]

Comments:The edits were not vandalism, yet he goes on reverting them. The 3RR page suggests that reverts involving different content are blockable too. I think it applies here. He wants to get my articles unstable whenever I GA-nominate them. When I am editing them, he comes in and tries to get them unstable. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 16:45, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - 1) I wasn't notified of this report. 2) The filer 'thanked' me for my first edit in the list above. 3) The edits weren't reversions, but corrections of spelling and other grammatical errors. 4) There's no edit warring taking place, nor am I trying to sabotage anything, as the filer claims. I'm invested in this article, too, and am only trying to improve it. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:21, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

(non admin observation) Diffs 63 and 64 are successive edits with no other editor in between and should be counted as one instance. The other edits are over grammar in different areas, this doesn’t appear to be edit warring. AlbinoFerret 17:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

You see the bad faith though? The editor's only intent is to get the article unstable and the problem with the edits is that I made them. They have behaved this way at Meghan Trainor and this one doesn't come as a surprise. I want some action taken though. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I agree with AlbinoFerret. There are only three sets of edits: the middle two are consecutive so only count as one. The first "revert" reverted your violation of WP:RETAIN and the second corrected a grammatical error. The final "revert" isn't really a revert at all: Winkelvi basically kept your edit as it is and just made a small correction to the grammar. I don't think there is a case for Winkelvi to answer to. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• How on earth can you say you're assuming good faith and accuse another editor of bad faith when you're blatantly reaching for a case in an attempt to have Winkelvi blocked for no good reason and you didn't even leave a notice of this discussion on his talk page (which is required)? Good grief. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

They have banned me from their userspace. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOBAN says that "a user cannot avoid administrator attention or appropriate project notices and communications by merely demanding their talk page is not posted to." This project page says that anyone who is reported here must be notified. If Winkelvi has a problem with it then he can revert it, but the notice is mandatory, and I highly doubt you failed to leave one out of respect for the "userspace ban," especially when you left this (bogus) edit warring warning after WV has asked you on numerous occasions not to post to his talk. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you making the case for Winkelvi, shouldn't he be doing it? Are you the same person? Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Given the interactions you two have had, and this questionable filing, a WP:BOOMERANG may be in order. AlbinoFerret

If this still makes any sense to you, I am sorry. If o many people think I am wrong, maybe a boomerang is in order. Good faith. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...)

I agree. The disruptive AfD nominations, bullshit AN3s, polemic userspace editing, etc. need to stop. A block, interaction ban, or both would really come in handy and stop the disruption from MF. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Lol. Yes, WV and I are clearly the same person. You should really edit "good faith" out of your signature, because it's apparent from your postings here (and much of your editing in general) that you have no idea what that is. For crying out loud, you assumed that the reason for his "edit warring" was a personal vendetta against you to sabotage your good article nominations. That is the worst possible faith ever. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Say what you will, Chase. I am here with good intentions. I am getting articles to good status and sometimes even getting barnstars. My only problem is with you and WV. Only an interaction ban is warranted. All About That Bass (A word?? / Stalking not allowed...) 17:53, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A clear case of a boomerang. Look out, (bad faith) MaranoFan! HandsomeFella (talk) 17:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Seriously, move on. Kuru (talk) 17:39, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Hanswar32 reported by User:Ronz (Result: )

User being reported: Hanswar32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Hanswar32's edit-warring spans a large number of BLP articles, and his entire time editing. His second edit ever [49] is a revert, the beginning of a long-running edit war with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) that has continued over the entire span of his editing (most recently [50] [51] [52][53][54]).

After he'd edit-warred with multiple editors, an ANI discussion was started: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive826#Repeated_spamming_of_utterly_non-notable_awards_on_porn_star_biographies

He's had over a year to resolve this problem, and his solution appears to be to edit-war despite his unblock request where he wrote, "I understand that I have been blocked for edit warring which I shall avoid in the future. Please note that I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and still getting familiar with my surroundings. Instead I will seek to resolve disputes through the avenues outlined and provided for me." Despite this he never did seek to resolve the dispute in other manners, and started edit-warring a month later: [55] [56] [57] [58]

As he very rarely uses edit summaries, so it's difficult to tell exactly how much of his editing is edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59] (After receiving the warning, he reverted it then reverted a tag on an article [60]).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute: His entire talk page is nothing but editors trying to resolve this dispute with him. Most recently, I tried to do so here as well as at Talk:Brandi_Love#Awards , Alexis Texas and Bobbi Starr - all articles where he's continued to edit-war.

I've made the mistake of trying to remove the poorly sourced content from these BLPs, which he (eg [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]) and Scalhotrod (talk · contribs) (eg [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]) simply revert.

I want to point out in his defense that he might be changing his habits somewhat, given his cleanup [73] after that of Hullaballoo Wolfowitz [74], instead of the normal edit-warring. He may realize now that non-notable awards shouldn't be listed, but he's yet to say so and I'm not going to remove any of his additions again, despite their being BLP violations requiring consensus for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 20:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

From the comments below, it seems that perhaps Hanswar32 didn't notice Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's cleanup and so didn't revert them. --Ronz (talk) 15:19, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's ironic how you're usually clueless about me by your own various admissions yet are so eager to report me. Let me once again fill you in (fyi: it would be more prudent to simply ask these questions on my talkpage if you genuinely cared/wanted to know): I did not revert (as you correctly pointed out) nor would I revert Hullaballoo's edits above because I agree with him and would have made those same edits myself. If you read my last paragraph below, you'd know why I agree with him. And had I disagreed with him, evidence points to me not engaging in an edit-war over it because my dispute with Hullaballoo has died down 3 weeks ago. You're 3 weeks too late, and some of the evidence you point to are months old. Hullaballoo and I have been getting along without incidence for the past 3 weeks and like I mentioned below, we always end up working out an informal truce that lasts even much longer usually after a discussion. That's hardly edit-warring. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments:

Firstly, as a casual Wikipedia editor, I'd like to acknowledge that respecting and adapting to community etiquette and guidelines is necessary for the success of the project, and if one were to disagree with certain policies, seeking consensus over time will likely create positive change that is acceptable to all. I recognize Ronz's earnestness in his attempts to be a vigilant defender/applier of policy, but what he fails to realize is that his interpretation of policy does not necessarily equate to policy in terms of its intended meaning nor its correct application. It reminds of another user, SqueakBox, who has been blocked indefinitely on multiple occasions [75] for his similarly extremely controversial interpretation of policy. I'd also like to note that Ronz is a bit sloppy when it comes to collecting facts or making accusations and he's even rescinded a previous claim he made against me on my own talkpage.

With that being said, I'd like to specifically address what has been said above. The edit he cites as my second edit ever, while true as "Hanswar32", is in fact not my second edit ever, as I was previously editing briefly as an IP user before I created this account in order to reap the benefits that a Wikipedia account provides a user. I invite any community member to review the ANI discussion above and its ultimate outcome as it was surely in my favor with me gaining the support of multiple editors by the end of it. Note that the ANI was started days after creating my account and I've never had to deal nor have been in conflict whatsoever with the editor who began that discussion as he simply disappeared afterwards from all articles that I'm involved in editing. In addition, and contrary to Ronz' false portrayal of me being involved in edit wars for over a year afterwards, I'd like to cite this talkpage [76] in addition to my own talkpage [77] as evidence that I've been involved in productive discussions over disputes which support my commitment to avoid edit-warring and utilize avenues available for seeking consensus. In particular, I would like to quote the following from my talkpage from January: "if Hullaballoo insists on edit warring and stubbornly refuses to acknowledge our offer of reconciliation and reverts my edits, then I'll just open a request for input on the article's talk page and settle it there." The dispute with Hullaballoo was effectively toned down afterwards, possibly thanks to this. The four 15-month old examples that Ronz cites above as evidence of my edit warring with Hullaballoo are extremely poor ones since Hullaballoo was making a blatantly false claim that the source failed to mention what was stated in the article. If he had simply checked the source, he would've noticed the information staring him in the face plain as day. After pointing that out numerously and imploring for a 3rd party to get involved, he ceased his disruption, likely after checking the source himself and silently acknowledging his error. The reason I say that this is a bad example to demonstrate my dispute with Hullabaloo is because our dispute stems to a fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of sourced awards he deems lack notability, while the example above was a misunderstanding to say the least, which was resolved relatively quickly and not reflective at all of any past disputes with Hullaballoo that were longstanding.

Ronz also claims that my talkpage is full of editors trying to resolve disputes with me, which is another misrepresentation as the only two users I've ever disputed with since the original ANI from the first days of my account a year and a half ago are Hullaballoo and Ronz, with long stretches of truces with Hullaballoo in-between usually following some sort of discussion where we agree to disagree. To counter Ronz claim, I've been editing for a year and a half productively on the same articles with the following users whom I bet are willing to vouch for me Scalhotrod, Erpert, Rebecca1990, Gene93k, Guy1890, Morbidthoughts and Dismas among others.

Although I appreciate Ronz' attempt to mention something in my defense, it's just another incorrectly deduced assumption he's made. My stance on including sourced award wins did not and has not changed. The cleanup he mentions was simply me doing what I enjoy doing, which is improve the quality of information presented in these articles by adding what is missing and removing what should not be there. I did a similar cleanup to Stormy Daniel's article by removing 11 awards. In both cases, the awards I removed were not won by the subject directly, but were awards presented to the films themselves that the subject was involved with in someway, and previous consensus states that awards of this nature in such cases should not be included. Hanswar32 (talk) 23:34, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

• Although I'm sure I have edited some of the same articles that Hanswar32 has edited, I am not invested enough in this situation to really offer an opinion, so I instead request that my name be left out of it (in addition, the discussion here has already ventured into WP:TLDR territory). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:44, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• @Erpert: Your input wasn't necessarily explicitly requested and you were free to comment or not comment at your discretion. My mention of you in addition to the others was simply a statement expressing my confidence that I have been editing the same articles as them without conflict. And judging by existing discussions at ANI and generally elsewhere on Wikipedia, I believe the length was appropriate considering the circumstances. Hanswar32 (talk) 09:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hanswar32 continues to edit war [78] --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• You do realize that your own behavior will be scrutinized as well? The evidence you cite above points to your edit-warring behavior and continuous revert of my edits. Two highly credible and experienced editors (Morbidthoughts & Nymf) both disagree with your inappropriate tag on the article's talkpage [79]. You've also been a complete nuisance on other talkpages [80] with not a single editor who agrees with you or your interpretations. I hope you stop your disruptive behavior, and I for one don't plan on edit-warring with you and am content to let the discussion take its course on the talkpage and gladly have any of the other experienced editors eventually remove your inappropriate tag. If you want to continue edit-warring and revert my edits, that's your prerogative. Hanswar32 (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
• It didn't take very long for another impartial editor to remove your tag [81]. Hanswar32 (talk) 00:33, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Terriblehyde reported by User:Joseph2302 (Result: indef)

Page

The Island of Doctor Moreau (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Terriblehyde (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660337789 by IronGargoyle (talk)"
2. 23:58, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660337285 by IronGargoyle (talk)"
3. 23:54, 1 May 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 660336640 by IronGargoyle (talk)"
4. 23:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC) ""
5. [82]
6. [83]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[84], [85], [86]

Comments:

Repeated addition of unsourced content claiming that Montgomery and Dr Moreau were partners. Even if true, it's unsourced. Ignoring editors telling them to stop. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely. Based on his talk page comments claiming to be Dr. Moreau, this is just a troll. Kuru (talk) 17:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Stevengreggory reported by User:Aronzak (Result: no action)

Page

The Islamic Schools of Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Stevengreggory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC) "Format Edit and Refernencing"
2. Consecutive edits made from 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) to 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
   1. 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659648480 by Karpes (talk)"
   2. 13:21, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 659615889 by Karpes (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 13:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of interest. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 11:01, 2 May 2015 (UTC) "/* Conspiracy theories */ new section"

Comments:

The principal of an Islamic school in Australia allegedly propagated the conspiracy theory that ISIL is funded by Israel. In response, a WP:NOTHERE single purpose editor is pushing POV statements into the article body, and adding conspiracy theory articles as references, with no talk page discussion despite warnings from three editors. The edits may fall afoul of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant -- Aronzak (talk) 11:02, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. There's really nothing actionable here. Two reverts over three days. Not previously warned for edit warring, and not notified of potential general sanctions. I'll add the page to my watch list as his edits are clearly poor; hopefully he'll join the discussion you just started. Kuru (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Intermittentgardener reported by User:Chestmas (Result: No violation)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vocativ&diff=660425962&oldid=660270434

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [87]
2. [88]
3. [89]
4. [90]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [91]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [92]

Comments:

I have seen this editor cleanse the page of anything unflattering and then try to OWN the page by erasing any improvement banners that notified users of this. In lieu of an edit war, I changed the tag to a dispute resolution tag, which they also removed, claiming that I was a sock. I have no common edits with any prior editors on this page, and have verified that my edits are not in line with any such previous behavior. I have no idea why I am being accused of such a thing, but either way, the user has claimed their suspicion of me and reason for ignoring my entries on the talk page on such suspicions. Although I suspect promotional editing, at this point all I am trying to do is talk about the lack of neutrality I see on the article, and the user refuses to do anything but revert me. I have seen other promotional edits on other pages that I initially attempted to flag, but at this point I know that they will simply be reverted. So I wish to curb all such co-editing and simply discuss it on the talk page. Regardless, the 3RR rule was broken, solely because of a lack of willingness to discuss with me on the talk page of Vocativ. Chestmas (talk) 17:46, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Chestmas, is a sock puppet attempting to get around a block. I am in the process of starting a sock puppet investigation and will post that later this day. It is SOP to to revert banned sock puppets trying to get around their blocks on Wikipedia and the 3RR policy even provides an explicit exemption for reverts made against sock puppets. This editor is going after the same content, using a newly created account yet shows an astounding knowledge of Wikipedia and its internal workings despite creating here account very recently, seems really only to care about Vocativ, and is now going after articles I edit in an attempt to provoke me into 3RR, obviously not knowing that 3RR does not apply if the reverter has a good faith belief they are reverting edits by a sock puppet. Intermittentgardener (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Please show any evidence at all that shows I have gone after "content" that a prior editor has. I have added some improvement banners, you removed them. I have made ZERO edits to the Vocativ page other than that. Wikipedia is a pretty straightforward enterprise if you read about it for half an hour or so. Yes, I am here because I am concerned about the Vocativ page, and those were my first edits. You mention "good faith", but where is yours? All I want is a talk page discussion, and it seems progressively more concering to me that you won't have one. Chestmas (talk) 18:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I challenge you to show any instance that I have disrupted Wikipedia. All I did was add two improvement banners, and then compromised to add a simple request for neutrality dispute resolution, which you brazenly removed with these accusations. Seriously, you can't just claim editors you disagree with are all socks. Even then, why are you so against discussing Vocativ's neutrality on the talk page? What harm does this cause you or Wikipedia? Chestmas (talk) 18:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we treat it like a duck. Your behavior is nearly identical to the numerous accounts already blocked for this nonsense that has been going on at Vocativ. See here: [93].

• No violation Chestmas, those reverts were made with edit summaries claiming exemption for reverting a "probable sockpuppet" and "a banned user getting around a block". I have to agree per WP:DUCK. As a "new" editor of less than five hours standing, who is so remarkably familiar with Wikipedia jargon and noticeboards, you have no credibility here. Bishonen | talk 18:09, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
  • OK, that's some very loud quacking. I've checked out Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Fatuouslemon/Archive and blocked Chestmas per WP:DUCK. Thank you, Intermittentgardener. Bishonen | talk 18:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC).

User:HeadCase320 reported by User:3family6 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Amon Amarth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HeadCase320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [94]
2. [95]
3. [96]
4. [97]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Comments: The Amon Amarth article has long been a target for edit warring, due to controversy over whether the band should be described as Viking metal, so this latest dispute is nothing new. A consensus developed previously to mention the band's labeling as a Viking metal group in both the lead and in a section discussing Amon Amarth's musical genre, but to keep "Viking metal" out of the infobox, since it is primarily the infobox that gets targeted in these disputes. In the latest dispute, which was between HeadCase320 and TenaciousDio, I sided with TenaciousDio in preserving the consensus, though I disagreed with how TenaciousDio handled the situation. Mashaunix attempted a compromise where Viking metal is included in the lead but with a footnote explaining the controversy. However, TenaciousDio rejected this, and Mashaunix did not challenge this objection, but did insist on a hidden note being included in the infobox to inform future editors of the dispute and the consensus regarding it. Yet HeadCase320 continues to edit war on this issue, both removing the note and reinserting "Viking metal" into the infobox. I left a warning a few days ago but they have persisted. This also is not the first time this editor has gotten into an edit dispute, having previously been warned about edit warring on the War of Ages and Supreme Chaos articles, as Mashaunix and Walter Görlitz can testify.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

I can confirm this is all true. I think HeadCase320 means well, but has repeatedly failed to engage in discussions to resolve conflicts, and usually doesn't explain edits in edit summaries either.--MASHAUNIX 18:14, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Clearly edit warring against multiple editors; was warned. Kuru (talk) 18:18, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:69.120.117.69 reported by 2602:306:8034:C990:AD8B:A980:757C:4001 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC) (Result: )

Page: Bob Duff (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.120.117.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [In edit summary]

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

Comments:

Obvious political campaigning.

2602:306:8034:C990:AD8B:A980:757C:4001 (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

User:68.117.94.3 reported by User:Ian.thomson (Result: Blocked)

Page: Talk:Southern Poverty Law Center (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.117.94.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [99]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. [100]
2. [101]
3. [102]
4. [103] - user warned.
5. [104]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [105]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:68.117.94.3

Comments:
IP is trolling the talk page, posting to start fights instead of improving the article. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

@Edgeweyes: and @Dustin V. S.: have also reverted him, so it's not just me who thinks he's trolling. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

anything counter to the leftwing orthodoxy's verion of the truth is trolling on wikipedia. Hear-yea, hear-yea! The pathetic thing here is that you, "ian thomson", actually think this is the case, my own sarcasm notwithstanding.68.117.94.3 (talk) 21:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours for edit-warring to use the talkpage as a soapbox for personal views. Acroterion (talk) 21:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)