Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by EdJohnston (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 15 October 2015 (→‎User:Bog5576 reported by User:Usterday (Result: Indef): Closing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    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:BilCat reported by User:Aditya Kabir (Result: Withdrawn)

    Here.

    And here.

    Refusing to discuss here.

    When warned here, BilCat responded with:

    This.

    And this.

    Regards. Aditya(talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    These are not extraordinary claims, and should not have been removed without prior discussion. I've added NINE references for the use of Indian subcontinent copied from that article, which clearly demonstrate that this is a term so common as to be common knowledge. Please note that subcontinent redirects to that article, indicating it's the primary topic, and that for other uses, users are directed by hatnote to Subcontinent section of the Continent article. Removing it without prior discussion is thus unacceptable and disruptive. - BilCat (talk) 12:39, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize for the inappropriate edit summaries, which are never warranted. I am also confused as to why this section was removed while an Rfd to retarget a redirect TO that section is underway here. This almost seems a pointy way to keep Indian subcontinent as the target for Subcontinent, given that Aditya Kabir was the user who performed the merge in December 2014. This is very odd. - BilCat (talk) 13:18, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Resolved. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:29, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: Someone needs to do something about Talk:Subcontinent though. Aditya(talk • contribs) 04:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Stolichanin reported by User:Serdik (Result: )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7] [8]

    Comments:
    A number of reverts the previous days, 8 reverts [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] on 10th October alone, having been warned [17]. This is almost a triple violation of the 3RR.

    User:41.133.109.131 reported by User:Sjö (Result: 31h)

    Page
    RT (TV network) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    41.133.109.131 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:10, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Citation does not come from a neutral source. Citing CNN is a joke."
    2. 17:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "SOURCE IS NOT NEUTRAL ! CNN IS NOT A NEUTRAL MEDIA PLATFORM!"
    3. 17:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685398824 by Volunteer Marek (talk)"
    4. 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Citing from CNN ,the guardian and other anti-Russian media stations is absolutely absurd. This represents a non impartial and biased viewpoint, which cannot be allowed in a Wikipedia article."
    5. 14:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "This article is clearly written in such a way as to undermine this news network and dismiss it as "propaganda", due to the introductory statement. Such dismissive language near the beginning cannot be tolerated. Other articles have no such statements."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 17:04, 12 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on RT (TV network). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User:Hanam190552 reported by User:Mztourist (Result: )

    Page: Fall of Saigon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hanam190552 (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. [18]
    2. [19]
    3. [20]
    4. [21]
    5. [22]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Request to discuss on Talk Page added with reverts, User:Wtmitchell attempted a dummy edit to open a conversation with Hanam190552 [23]

    Comments:

    User:Hanam190552 has been edit warring on Fall of Saigon, making substantive, unreferenced changes all of which are marked as minor. His edits seem to be mainly intended to claim that the National Liberation Front (NLF or Vietcong) defeated South Vietnam with support from North Vietnam. He has made similar edits to: Hue–Da Nang Campaign, Battle of Ban Me Thuot, 1975 Spring Offensive, Battle of Xuân Lộc and Paris Peace Accords. Hanam190552 has not discussed any of these changes to try to establish consensus and I request that he is blocked. Mztourist (talk) 03:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hanam190552 has also created a page National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army which I tagged for merger with Viet Cong, he then created a new page Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) using the same information but without copying over my merger tag. I reinstated the merger tag on the new page and put in a xref to the merger proposal on the talk page, User:Hanam190552 then removed my comments from the talk page per this diff [24] which I regard as a serious breach of policy. Mztourist (talk) 05:53, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hanam190552 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Sorry MZtourist, we cannot merge the NLF army to Viet Cong. Viet Cong is not a army, it is a political organisation with its' owned army, the PLAFHanam190552 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Beside that, the Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) and National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army are one entity, creation of National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army is my mistake. Now I am wanting to delete National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army. Thank youHanam190552 (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hanam190552 you are trying to make large, non-consensual changes without even having mastered the basics of Wikipedia. Your opposition to the merger should be discussed on the Viet Cong talk page to see if there is consensus for its retention. Mztourist (talk) 06:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have blocked this user for two days and placed this message on his talk page. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 14:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mztourist reported by User:Hanam190552

    Hanam190552 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)I am trying to delete and redirect the article National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army, the User:Mztourist has destructive actions to my efforts[reply]

    Hanam190552 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)Sorry MZtourist, we cannot merge the NLF army to Viet Cong. Viet Cong is not a army, it is a political organisation with its' owned army, the PLAFHanam190552 (talk) 06:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Beside that, the Viet Cong's army-People's Liberation Armed Forces of South Vietnam (PLAF) and National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army are one entity, creation of National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army is my mistake. Now I am wanting to delete National Liberation Front of South Vietnam army. Thank youHanam190552 (talk) 06:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank youHanam190552 (talk) 06:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Puto servos fugitivos esse reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 1 week)

    Page: Duke of Manchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Puto servos fugitivos esse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [25]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [26]
    2. [27]
    3. [28]
    4. [29]
    5. [30]
    6. [31]
    7. [32]
    8. [33]

    This has been going on for a few weeks now. A block of sourced content relating to the 13th Duke of Manchester is repeatedly removed from the Duke of Manchester article. No explanation, no discussion, no BLP issues highlighted, no response to warnings. This has been restored by three different editors, then removed again.

    Oddly though, they seem to like restoring content about the son of the 13th duke [34], if that is removed.

    Blocked – for a period of 1 week. I see plenty of discussion from the other participants but not him, so he'll have to sit back and wait for consensus to form. PS: My Latin is rusty but I believe his username translates as "I judge the slaves to be fugitives" - is that a barbed comment to the financial collapse of the 12th duke? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:31, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    Page: Hinduism in Scandinavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [35]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [36]
    2. [37]
    3. [38]

    See also Semitic Germanic Heritage, Islam in Scandinavia and Judaism in Scandinavia.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See multiple discussions at User talk:Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation.

    Comments:Following a recent block for edit warring, Holy islamic state of the Germanic Nation has returned and continues to add unsourced material to multiple articles, edit warring when it is removed. When sources are requested, they will provide one (often unreliable) that clearly does not support the material being added. Cordless Larry (talk) 10:43, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A further revert:
    1. [40]
    Cordless Larry (talk) 11:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Nomoskedasticity reported by User:Part (Result: Part blocked)

    Page: Philip Baker (obstetrician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_Baker_%28obstetrician%29&type=revision&diff=685570626&oldid=685507224

    Diffs of the user's reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philip_Baker_(obstetrician)&action=history

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


    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APhilip_Baker_%28obstetrician%29&type=revision&diff=685538976&oldid=685516654

    Comments:
    Nomoskedasticity seems to have used an "anonymous" IP address 64.222.64.38 to revert for the third time to an incorrect version of an article despite this being pointed out, perhaps to get around the three-revert rule. Please see and decide on this violation. Part (talk) 17:24, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm -- I suppose I'm also 70.192.210.119?? Anyway: a quick look at the history of the article will indeed show who has violated WP:3RR here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I would have thought filing a report at 3RRN shows sufficient awareness of 3RR. (Part continued reverting even after filing this report.) Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:36, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:EW, yes, but not necessarily WP:3rr specifically. There are a lot of people who file reports assuming that the standard is "other people keep reverting me" without any awareness of 3rr. Ian.thomson (talk) 06:43, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Cpt.a.haddock reported by VictoriaGrayson (Result:)

    Page: Padmasambhava (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Cpt.a.haddock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. diff1
    2. diff2
    3. diff3
    4. diff4

    There may be other edits that are considered reverts.

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
    Warning diff

    Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
    Link

    Comments:
    Editor is still edit warring despite the wishes of @Joshua Jonathan and Montanabw: and myself.VictoriaGraysonTalk 17:49, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That's been a while since I was at two notice-boards at one time... May I ask not to block, but to threat this as a last and final warning? I will look into it. Best regards, and keep cool, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:17, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: As far as I can tell, this editor will not engage with the other editors but seems primarily to resort to templating Victoria and communicating via edit summaries. Montanabw(talk) 20:08, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    For those looking into this issue, please consider the ongoing discussion on the talk page as well. Consensus has yet to be reached and the before and after diff of the article shows that my reverts try to ensure that large swathes of referenced text that are under question are not deleted by VictoriaGrayson to suit their POV. My edits also ensure that the tags at the top of the page are intact until this issue is resolved.
    To address the four reverts cited as evidence of edit warring:
    1. diff1: There is some weird tag-teaming going on between VG and Montanabw. The latter's involvement in this issue appears to have been precipitated by a ping by VG which was subsequently deleted (although the ping would have still gone through). MontanaBW promptly arrives and reverts my edits citing WP:BRD and WP:BURDEN (presumably without even reading through history). They also do not revert back to the revision that triggered this entire issue (as per BRD) but to a revision preferred by VG which (as mentioned before) casually nukes two entire referenced sections from the article. My edit reverted MontanaBW's edit with a explanatory message.
    2. diff2: My next edit reverted back to the "status quo" (as MontanaBW requested).
    3. diff3: VG promptly reverts my revert to her preferred version (with the undiscussed section deletions). This is after I had noted on the talk page that I wanted to go in for some form of mediation. I revert her revert stating the same.
    4. diff4: VG reverts again. Meanwhile, Joshua offers to mediate. I revert again asking VG to wait for mediation pointing to his message. This revert also includes the tag that Joshua requested on the tag page.
    Also worth pointing out are the repeated ad hominems by VG one of which can be seen in their ping to MontanaBW (which was at least the third one). The other two I can remember are on their talk page here and early on in our discussion here. There were a few barbed comments thrown in as well. Such a lack of civility hamstrings any collaborative endeavour and does not encourage communication. Cheers.--Cpt.a.haddock (talk) (please ping when replying) 13:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This individual always tries to justify his edit warring, and therefore will continue to edit war.VictoriaGraysonTalk 14:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Burbak reported by User:Mahensingha (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

    Page
    Bihari Rajputs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Burbak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 09:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685235563 by Mahensingha (talk)"
    2. Repeted even after warning
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. Invited_to_talk_page
    Comments:

    The user is habitual of reverting any of the maintenance tag placed for article improvement. In the past also, all the maintenance tags were removed hence the article remains unnoticed by the experts.

    The user indulged in personal attack on me.See the language he use See MahenSingha (Talk) 19:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:119.81.31.4 reported by User:NorthBySouthBaranof (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

    Page
    Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    119.81.31.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 00:57, 14 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685632118 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) Please stop edit warring"
    2. 00:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685631431 by NorthBySouthBaranof (talk)"
    3. 00:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC) "Talk page doesn't indicate consensus. Non-neutral heading. Your history on this section shows edit warring, which is not simply violation of 3RR."
    4. 07:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685461945 by NorthBySouthBaranof We can't have a section on the lawsuit without explaining its relevance to Abedin"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 00:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Huma Abedin. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

    I repeatedly invited the user to discuss the issue on the article talk page, but they declined to do so.

    Comments:

    Pretty straightforward 3RR violation after being asked to discuss the issue on the article talk page and directly warned on their user talk page. The revert war is removing a longstanding consensus (since 2013) and impeccably-sourced statement which described highly-negative fringe claims about a living person as a "conspiracy theory", based on an indisputable consensus of reliable journalistic sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:01, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    4th example is unrelated to the other three. Frivolous report. Article history shows long-term edit warring from this editor and on this change specifically. 119.81.31.4 (talk) 01:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    As the policy makes clear, the edits don't have to be related — four reverts of any edit by any editor is a violation. I suggest you self-revert your violation and initiate a discussion on the talk page, as I have previously and repeatedly requested you do. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear, I have no issue with describing this theory as a conspiracy theory - but it's inappropriate as a heading. Disingenuous to claim "consensus" on this heading has existed since 2013. Here's a list of the editor's reverts of this specific change, against a number of editors (not just myself), all within the last 12 days:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=685632118&oldid=685631861
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=685631431&oldid=685628186
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=685622572&oldid=685568561
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=684365517&oldid=684363631
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=683884367&oldid=683882612
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=683639372&oldid=683638985
    7. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Huma_Abedin&diff=683631252&oldid=683409361
    You'll note in some of these diffs the same claim to a "consensus" which doesn't exist on the talk page or in the archives. 119.81.31.4 (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I could create a similar list of reverts by other editors, but that would be beside the point, because this is about your clear violation of the 3-revert rule. I suggest again that you self-revert your violation and discuss the issue on the article talk page. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Two IPs reported by User:151.20.75.83 (Result: Semi)

    User:95.252.92.54 here is keeping making an uncorrect edit (the IPA is corrupted because of uncorrect syntax). I had already reported him last week (he had a totally different IP User:87.6.116.237 but it was him), but no administrator has ever intervened, so yesterday he did again the same uncorrect edit. I hope someone of you will make him stop, I am tired of his disruptive edits and I do not want to start another edit war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.75.83 (talk) 11:39, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Assuming that you are the same editor who has previously edited that article under at least two other IP addresses in the 151.20.xxx series, there would have been more chance of other editors being able to consider the validity of your edits if you had provided edit summaries in English rather than Italian; this is, after all, the English Wikipedia. - David Biddulph (talk) 14:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello 151.20. You are more likely to get a favorable response if you will specify which article or articles you think are subject to the edit war. If admins can't figure out who is doing what, but they see a lot of IPs reverting one another, they may just semiprotect the whole lot. If you yourself are hopping IPs during this commotion you can't expect to be taken very seriously. Feel free to list the other IPs you have used recently. EdJohnston (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @David Biddulph:
    You are right about English, those messages were for my. 87/95, I am sorry; however, the fact is that if you watch his edits (such as this) you will see that the IPA results uncorrect, I think he knows it but he just does not want to "lose" one more time against me.
    @EdJohnston:
    The article is "Renato Vallanzasca" as I wrote before, maybe I just did not specify it explicitly, it is my fault but I thought it was clear enough; about my IP it is dynamic and often changes, but it is always recognizable as it starts with 151.20 (unlike his). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.88.2 (talk) 18:30, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Result: Semiprotected Renato Vallanzasca one month. The editor who is using 151.20.* is welcome to welcome to explain their reasoning on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:21, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much EdJohnston! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.94.5 (talk) 16:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Pebble101 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: Blocked 60 hours)

    Page: Indian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Pebble101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [41] (11:57UTC, logged in) (all times given are today)
    2. [42] (11:22UTC, logged in)
    3. [43] (10:13UTC, as an IP, see below)
    4. [44] (09:51UTC, as an IP)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45] (11:46UTC)

    Comments:

    • I have addressed this issue on my talk page, it was edited in good faith due to copyright violation and source content which User:Doug_Weller has pointed out on my page a few times. The issue is still under discussion, the conent was sourced and created by me, If i wanted things my way i wouldn't be discussing with him on copyright-violations regarding my sources.Pebble101 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry but I only made edits in good faith. If i really wanted things my way then i would have added the source content that User:Doug_Weller removed as copyright violation everywhere.Pebble101 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the page history, your deliberately misleading edit-summaries and talk-page posts and the fact that you didn't start editing logged in until right after the article was semi-protected, and you were forced to log in, clearly show that your edits were not made in good faith. Thomas.W talk 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And he can't claim he didn't know about the rules against edit-warring since he was blocked for 31h for edit-warring on another article as recently as two days ago... Thomas.W talk 13:06, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    My block was for a day, It was lifted on 13th and Kautilya3 also confronted me about it and i was not editing while i was blocked, from what i remember since it was night for me here.Pebble101 (talk) 13:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You were blocked for 31h at 02:40UTC on 12 October, meaning that the block expired at 09:40UTC on 13 October, but started editing as an IP at 06:21UTC on the 13th. So it's a clear case of block evasion... Thomas.W talk 13:55, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Blocked – for a period of 60 hours for 3RR violation and block evasion. Pebble101, you are not allowed to violate WP:3RR even if you think you're right, and even if the issue is being discussed. Indeed, that it's being discussed is all the more reason for not edit warring. Bishonen | talk 14:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:46.19.231.255 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Constantine the Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 46.19.231.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [47]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [48]
    2. [49]
    3. [50]
    4. [51]
    5. [52]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: IP has chosen not to use the talk page

    Comments:
    IP 46.19.231.255 started this by removing sourced information from Constantine the Great[54], where upon the IP proceeded to depict Constantine's ethnicity as nothing but "Illyrian". Athenean and Tataryn both have reverted the IP. The IP has responded to said revertions not with a discussion on the talk page, but accusations of vandalism.[55][56]. This IP has been previously blocked over the same ethnicity issue concerning Dardani and Jerome articles. [57] Juding from the IPs lack of discussion(s), their deletion of referenced information they don't like, and their battleground mentality(ie. "Reverted vandalism"), I am not convinced the IP is here to build an encylopedia. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Repeat of edit warring by IP Diff file:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Constantine_the_Great&type=revision&diff=685709385&oldid=685666964

    User Warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:46.19.231.255#October_2015_2

    --CuriousMind01 (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – for a period of 1 week – Previously blocked for a similar reason on October 2 for 31 hours. This IP seems to be a promoter of connections to Illyria. Illyria is an ancient nation which features in some national origin disputes in the Balkans. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Catholicdood‎ reported by User:Hchc2009 (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

    Page: Edward the Confessor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Catholicdood‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [58]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [59]
    2. [60]
    3. [61]
    4. [62]
    5. [63]
    6. [64]

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

    Comments:

    The user is also editing under User:Catholicdood1 and still at it as User:Catholicdood2 Hchc2009 (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked – for a period of 48 hours (All three participating accounts.) Not completely clear yet that he's using the alternate accounts abusively or intending to do so, but I'll note he's been quite relentless so far. Samsara 19:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bilderling reported by MarkYabloko (Result:Declined )

    Page: Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User talk:Bilderling#Bilderling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bilderling (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Smartphone user (multiple IPs) reported by User:Muboshgu (Result:Semiprotected)

    Page: Clayton Kershaw (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Baseballfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 108.27.63.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 97.47.66.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and 97.47.65.251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [66]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [67]
    2. [68]
    3. [69]
    4. [70]
    5. [71]
    6. [72]
    7. [73]
    8. [74]
    9. [75]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see Talk:Clayton Kershaw#Saturday, and User talk:Muboshgu#Days of the week and Birthdays

    Comments:
    This user was editing as 108.27.63.106, and more recently as 97.47.66.68 and 97.47.65.251. On Talk:Clayton Kershaw#Saturday, the IP acknowledged that they use a smart phone to edit, generating different IP addresses. On my talk page, the editor associated their edits with baseballfan, though they're logged out while editing. The editor is edit warring against consensus, and numerous editors have warned the individual to stop edit warring on the talk page. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    we've tried many ways to resolve this content dispute peacefully. However the above editors seem to be stubborn to a point where they tend to treat this site more like a video game than an encyclopedia. If you wanna play games, we're ready for that. We would prefer to settle this peacefully before the real fighting starts Anonymous 19:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    All that threats of game playing are likely to get is a page protected to prevent anonymous editors from editing it at all. You might want to rethink your stratergy. Amortias (T)(C) 19:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:DHeyward reported by User:Samsara (Result: Stale )

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


    Previous version reverted to: [77]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [78]
    2. [79]
    3. [80]
    4. [81]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [82]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Various sections - Talk:Cecil (lion)

    Comments:

    • He simultaneously warred over another separate change to the same article, with partly overlapping diffs. I don't know if they will separately exceed 3RR. Should I add these here or in a separate report, or will they not be needed? Thanks. Samsara 19:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I fear that insisting on the "they will file extradition proceedings" where it is now clear they were not filed against a living person, and will not be filed, does raise valid issues of WP:BLP. Until it became clear that no charges would be filed, there was a reasonable excuse to keep that in the WP:BLP here (all articles concerning living persons fall into the policy category). With it now being clear that the claim of extradition being filed is inapt, it should be removed, Wikipedia is not here to state material which is not apparently true. [83] seems dispositive here, and so DHeyward's use of policy is reasonable here, in my opinion. Collect (talk) 19:37, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think edit warring is acceptable when the interpretation of the policy is in reasonable dispute. The intention to have Palmer extradited was reported and is part of the timeline of relevant events. It seems at least equally reasonable to continue to state that Zimbabwe had intended to seek extradition, which is the simple truth. A strong case of BLP violation would be where the claims cannot be substantiated. However, in this case, the facts can be substantiated and the question is over what weight to give them. Samsara 19:56, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whether the edit was "correct" is not what matters here. There's a claim of (exemption via) "BLP violation" -- but that claim is pretty far-fetched. It is indeed worth looking at the recent edit history to see the extent of DHeyward's reverts on this article -- as noted above, it does go beyond the reverts indicated in this report. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue is that the facts of the case have changed...the government of Zimbabwe no longer wants to extradite the hunter for the purposes of prosecution yet those opposed to DHeywards removal of old outdated information is being suppressed. This old outdated information is now a BLP violation as it states that the government of Zimbabwe wants to extradite the hunter...that information is now four months old and the new information which states the hunter is welcome to return on his own for visits but may not return of he plans on hunting. Edit warring is bad but old information that is now inaccurate and is defamation should be removed.--MONGO 20:15, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    • I posted the issue to BLP:N yesterday. So far, there is no substantial disagreement that these aren't BLP violations. I am not the only one reverting Samsara. Close this or boomerang it back as Samsara continues to add BLP violating material. Palmer is not a notable figure. His past behavior has no bearing on Cecil and he has been cleared of wrongdoing. I have only removed the material where, in WP's voice, we say Zimbabwe initiated extradition procedures. They did not. In the place where we properly attributed it to the minister that made claims that it was illegal, I left it. That minister was obviously wrong. I left that, though, as it was an opinion. Any place where we assert that it was "illegal" or that they were "seeking extradiction" is not factual and is therefore poorly sourced. We don't repeat falsehoods about living people in Wikipedia's voice simply because the press got it wrong. I also removed COATRACK material about previous hunts that Palmer was a part of as being immaterial to thee topic and negative BLP information. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm smiling at the thought that you might be committing a BLP violation by accusing me of one. Any reliable sources? Now, the intention to seek extradition was reported in reliable sources. That historical intention was not changed by the fact they were subsequently not able to act on that intention. You continue to make false claims in these discussions about what is and isn't documented in RS, which I find extremely disruptive. Same with the claim that we had made an original connection between the bear permit violation and the Cecil case, when in fact the source discusses it in that exact context. Deliberate disruption is what I see. Samsara 21:05, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Zimbabwe officials said they had initiated legal proceedings to extradite Palmer from the United States to face a charge is the first diff you highlight as being "edit warring." It is a false statement. Zimbabwe did not have any charges for Palmer to face. They did not initiate proceedings to extradite. Those are falsehood that have BLP implications and you are edit warring to add them in. In fact, you changed the assertion that instead of "starting extradition proceedings" to face charges already brought, to your own made up version that they "intended to seek extradition." The fact is that Zimbabwe officials said they had initiated legal proceedings to extradite Palmer from the United States to face a charge is false. It is known to be false because there are no charges and there are no proceedings. That became known in the last week. Stop readding BLP violating material that seeks to portray a living person as someone that was accused of a crime. He was not and is not facing criminal charges. We cannot state it in Wikipedia's voice but we can attribute it to the minister that made their opinion known (an opinion that was not shared by the Zimbabwean authorities) --DHeyward (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • (ec) There is no such contradiction. The prosecutor general was contacted, which is all the minister can do in terms of legal proceedings. So yes, legal proceedings had been initiated. Do I need to direct you to the definition of "initiate"? Also, Wikipedia is not a soapbox where you get to reinterpret what RS actually say. Samsara 21:24, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I see you revised your comment to be slightly more reasonable. Technically, the minister is part of the executive, which qualifies as "authorities", but okay, if you want to propose a wording that includes what the minister said, then please do so and we'll take it from there. I still maintain that you should not have been reverting at the high frequency you did without allowing time for discussion, and it's sad that we had to come all this way to apparently (I might be foolishly hopeful here) have a meaningful discussion. Samsara 21:28, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, I didn't revise anything. This statement is already in the article with proper attribution so I didn't remove it: At a press conference on 31 July 2015, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Opa Muchinguri, said the hunter broke Zimbabwean law and needs to be held accountable. “We are appealing to the responsible authorities for his extradition to Zimbabwe" that's an accurate quote of a single person but they are obviously wrong about Palmer breaking the law. Putting it in Wikipedia's voice that the Zimbabwe had charged him with a crime for which they were seeking extradition is false as they had not charged him with a crime nor had they initiated extradition proceedings. Properly attributed, I left it. Not properly attributed is a BLP violation. We don't need it more than once either. --DHeyward (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Show me that the article ever said what you claim it said. I think you're just making stuff up again on the fly. Samsara 23:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Gee wwhiz. It's your first diff![85] that makes the claim that Zimbabwe said he was facing a charge. I removed it. The second one is still in this section [86]. It's the paragraph that starts At a press conference on 31 July 2015, Zimbabwe’s environment minister, Opa Muchinguri, said the hunter broke Zimbabwean law and needs to be held accountable. “We are appealing to the responsible authorities for his extradition to Zimbabwe". It's still there and attributed. That minister was obviously wrong and is the basis for your edit war to keep in BLP violating material. --DHeyward (talk) 00:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stale DHeyward's reverts could be construed as being exempt from 3RR due to removing arguable BLP violations, but in any case there has been no repeated back and forth since Green Cardamom's revert here yesterday, so any admin action right now would not be appropriate. That said, I would advise DHeyward to keep the issue of whether or not to mention extradition charges to the talk page, or escalate to WP:DRN if disagreement becomes stronger. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Evenro reported by User:Kingsindian (Result: Blocked 1 week)

    Page: Intifada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Evenro (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
    4. diff

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

    Comments:

    Page is under WP:1RR. User insists that they are right, so it is ok to edit-war. There is also edit-warring by IP, who is inserting identical edits. It is probably a meat or sock. Kingsindian ♝♚ 08:42, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I didn't realize that this was under ARBPIA, since it was a definition of a word in Arabic on a page that listed its use over many different countries. Therefore, when I identified Evenro as a kind of throw-away sock (see contribs for the usual signs: early registration, a sleeper account, that is suddenly activated on just one or two articles) I just thought in terms of 3R. The fellow was a nuisance editor IP editor with absolutely no regard for talk page discussion. Now that Kingsindian, who knows more than I do about these rules, has identified it as under ARBPIA, where 1R applies, not 3R, I appear to have broken the same rule, and ignorance is no excuse. So if any admin is minded to review this, and sanction me, I will have no problems with that. Nishidani (talk) 12:12, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I reviewed the history when I blocked and decided the socking was causing the most disruption. --NeilN talk to me 14:08, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Soundwaweserb reported by 94.253.23.60 (Result: )

    Page: Talk:Novak Djokovic (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Soundwaweserb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Link to talk page: [91]

    Here is another link to the talk page discussion, since the reported editor is removing it. [92]

    The other editor close request. I gave relevant references, your reference is not relevant. Please stop reverting, obviously one user with more IP address vandalize that page.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 17:10, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    That other editor really doesn't have any connections to the closure requests. This is the first one he had closed and it was not done properly. He is also Croatian or Serbian and it would be nice for uninvolved editor to close that request. That is why I reopened the request for closure in the appropriate place and that is why I reverted him on the talk page since I reopened the closure request. He hadn't complained since the morning and it really isn't your place to revert me. You could have complained to him that I'm removing something he had closed. I stress again. He really isn't an editor to do the closure, he had never done it. He came out of the blue sky , closing this improperly. Let's leave it for other experienced editors to close this. Him closing this request is pretty much like if I were to close someone's request right now. I'm sure those other person would also complain someone totally irrelevant is closing his request. 94.253.23.60 (talk) 17:20, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    IP continues to revert, please block IP, discussion is over and request is rejected. Also, this is obviously one person who have more IP address and constantly vandalize talk page.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 20:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    On the contrary. You keep to revert. A discussion can't be closed with an open closure request. I reverted you since it seemed my upper comment had gotten to you, but I was wrong. Unfortunately, this will have to be resolved by an admin. To repeat, I still stand that it is not your busyness to revert me, since I'm going to a certain procedure. I filed a closure request that is opened and it now points to a "closed" discussion because you keep reverting me. You are highly disruptive and I'm really not surprised after this comment of yours to the other editor who entered the source to the article: "What's your problem and why are you introducing lies and Croatian propaganda to the article. No one made you to enter Novak parent's supposed nationality to the article. Without any reason you are destroying the article of such a great sportsmen. We all know Novak is Serbian and he represents Serbia, and we don't have to speak about how much he loves Serbia. It is not right for you to do this and with that you are backing up nationalistic and shovinistic propaganda.". I think it is obvious that is a POV pushing stand. You are highly rude to the other editor who entered the sources to the article. You are participating in edit warring and you are POV pushing. You are plain disruptive even without this edit warring. Your quoted comment perfectly shows you joined the discussion to push POV and deny a legit source. You went on putting a video as a source and you claim it says something, but when I asked you to point to it, you refused. You refused to provide an English quote from sour supposed source and you completely neglect it is a primary source, yet you keep denying my secondary source. That's plain disruptive and now an edit warring because you can't accept the fact that I'm following the procedure to close that request. Do you even realize that you are opposing an admin who made a suggestion, me who brought the source and another editor who entered it to the article with no source and with no valid stand but with this POV pushing stand? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.23.60 (talk) 20:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Here's the link to the closure request: [93]. It still stands open and not initiated. How can then a discussion be closed?? 94.253.23.60 (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:73.159.141.25 reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: )

    Page
    Blue Lantern Corps (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    73.159.141.25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) to 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. 17:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Changed to document FIRST publication of drawn Character of the drawn character and titled "Blue Lantern " as referenced by Author and publication and documented."
      2. 17:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Changed to document FIRST publication of drawn Character of the drawn character and titled "Blue Lantern " as referenced by Author and publication and documented."
    2. 16:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685887705 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
    3. 16:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 685886963 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
    4. 16:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 684577957 by ScrapIronIV (talk)"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Caution: Addition of unsourced or improperly cited material on Blue Lantern Corps. (TW)"
    2. 16:44, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Blue Lantern Corps. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User has been attempting to restore contentious and uncited material for weeks. This is just the latest attempt. IP is reverting multiple editors. Scr★pIronIV 17:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alwaysgreen reported by User:ScrapIronIV (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    History of Paris (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Alwaysgreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "again continuation by 2 editors to get ownership of article breaking wiki rules of ownership and neutrality"
    2. 16:40, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "tell that to the people who believe they have ownership of article"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) to 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. 16:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "no need to mention all titles of royalty and repetition, names of other monuments remains to present day"
      2. 16:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "restoring contributions from people who think they have ownership of article"
    4. Consecutive edits made from 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) to 15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
      1. 15:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "no need to all details"
      2. 15:54, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""
      3. 15:57, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "palais du louvre castle"
    5. 13:04, 15 October 2015 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 16:05, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "General note: Removal of maintenance templates on History of Paris. (TW)"
    2. 16:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on History of Paris. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Attempted to recommend talk page, but the editor's summaries indicate no intent to do so. Reverting three different editors, removing maintenance tags, and appears to be a sock account. Scr★pIronIV 17:30, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Bog5576 reported by User:Usterday (Result: Indef)

    Page: Sylvester Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Bog5576 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [94]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [95]
    2. [96]
    3. [97]
    4. [98]
    5. [99]
    6. [100]
    7. [101]
    8. [102]
    9. [103]
    10. [104]
    11. [105]
    12. [106]
    13. [107]
    14. [108]
    15. [109]
    16. [110]
    17. [111]
    18. [112]
    19. [113]
    20. [114]
    21. [115]
    22. And dozens of others found here [116]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [117]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in the edit war, however there appears to be no discussion on the article's talk page to try and mitigate the differences between the two editors.

    Comments:

    I am not involved in this, but have noticed it going on. Dozens of reverts. It seems the user was recently blocked for edit warring as well. Usterday (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    My unban request was upheld because it was deemed that I was not at fault for the edit war taking place. Please note context. Bog5576 (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is especially troubling due to his use of edit summaries like this one, showing a clear disregard for Wikipedia's rules: you can read it here Usterday (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You can also see from the user's edit history that they have done very, very little except edit-war on this page in their Wikipedian career: seen here almost all their edits have been edit warring. Usterday (talk) 18:09, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the bottom line. I'm adding unflattering (yet cited and notable) information into some candidates' pages. People that work on their campaigns have repeatedly failed to remove the content because I was following Wikipedia's guidelines. Sometimes you have to revert a user's edits to protect important information. Unfortunately, that happened more than 3 times. The fact of the matter is that as election day approaches, more and more attempts will be made to undo these edits and erase important information. Bog5576 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been four more reverts since I first posted this report less than an hour ago. It is apparent that Bog5576 has responded to this report by continuing on as they were, and argue that it isn't a big deal. Usterday (talk) 18:58, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked indefinitely. User:Bog5576 appears to be intent on slanting our article against this BLP subject, who is a candidate for office. During a political campaign, not every source or press release deserves to be quoted verbatim. Turner was at one point accused of being part of an insurance scam, but a court reversed the decision and awarded him damages. Bog5576 interprets any removal of his changes as being done by people campaigning for Turner. I'm placing an indef because I don't detect any interest in following our policy. When I tried engaging him on his talk page I made no progress. Someone with the username Bog5576 is the subject of an article about Wikipedia in the Houston Chronicle that draws attention to the negative material he has been adding. EdJohnston (talk) 20:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=685918923"