Revision as of 02:22, 30 January 2015 editLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,291,616 editsm Archiving 3 discussion(s) to User talk:EdJohnston/Archive 34) (bot← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:03, 30 January 2015 edit undoMy very best wishes (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users56,373 edits →FYI: reNext edit → | ||
Line 124: | Line 124: | ||
The guys are battling for a few days in several pages. Each made a 3RR violation . But I would hate to report them to 3RRNB: they are good contributors. Maybe some kind of a warning? ] (]) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | The guys are battling for a few days in several pages. Each made a 3RR violation . But I would hate to report them to 3RRNB: they are good contributors. Maybe some kind of a warning? ] (]) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
:I don't see an actual 3RR there, and the two guys are discussing this quite a bit, mostly on user talk. Each of them is already notified under ] in case of further trouble. ] (]) 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | :I don't see an actual 3RR there, and the two guys are discussing this quite a bit, mostly on user talk. Each of them is already notified under ] in case of further trouble. ] (]) 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
::OK. I also noticed a discussion between two other users on your talk page. You gave them notices and protected the article in dispute. It seems that one of them just resumed edit warring on this page, immediately after expiration of your protection , without having consensus on this article talk page. Given my previous history, I will not participate in these disputes any longer. Just letting you know as an admin who protected this article... ] (]) 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
== St. Augustine movement == | == St. Augustine movement == |
Revision as of 17:03, 30 January 2015
User has become a troll?
Hi Ed, I feel a little like I've been left hung out to dry and don't have the Admin tools to fix it. This user has not made a constructive edit in 5 days and 100+ edits, just troll like attacks on me. This can't be good for my reputation, and is harmful to the project. Can you wrap this mess up or should we seek out another Admin or do I have to start another ANi? Legacypac (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Would it be tasteless for me to suggest you approach one of the admins who defended Signedzzz in the last ANI? People will be looking to see who is more reasonable in the dispute.I can't tell from a distance (i.e. in 30 seconds) that one party is conspicuously better than the other. So you have a PR problem to solve if you want admin action. My knowledge of the history suggests a certain answer, but not everyone will see it the same way. Merely starting another ANI is unlikely to work. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)- You suggested a topic ban, I quoted you, and then you said nothing, so I feel a little exposed. I'll look for another admin, and if you have any other thoughts, I watch your talk.Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're the one who copied my 3RR closure over to ANI. I struck through one of my comments above. My suggestion would be for you to step back from the Boko Haram article. Though I don't keep up with everything that happens at ANI, I see you've had some trouble at ANI in your own right. Someone who is truly behaving badly (which is what you seem to be suggesting above) will eventually get into such bad repute that something will be done. You don't have to be at the center of that, and you will be better off working on other topics. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- My ANi trouble consists of him filing the report against me because he disliked the 3RR report results, and then adding and adding to it. I'd like to see it closed. Looking I see Drimes commented but did not take the time to look into it. He is not partial to me at all so I'm going to ask him to evaluate and close it. After you blocked him many editors have gotten involved fixing Boko Haram up - it had some real issues - and it is a lot better now. I have no fear about any scrutiny of my ability to edit and source. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Can't advise you any further. If you open a new ANI, please don't quote me on anything. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- My ANi trouble consists of him filing the report against me because he disliked the 3RR report results, and then adding and adding to it. I'd like to see it closed. Looking I see Drimes commented but did not take the time to look into it. He is not partial to me at all so I'm going to ask him to evaluate and close it. After you blocked him many editors have gotten involved fixing Boko Haram up - it had some real issues - and it is a lot better now. I have no fear about any scrutiny of my ability to edit and source. Thanks. Legacypac (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- You're the one who copied my 3RR closure over to ANI. I struck through one of my comments above. My suggestion would be for you to step back from the Boko Haram article. Though I don't keep up with everything that happens at ANI, I see you've had some trouble at ANI in your own right. Someone who is truly behaving badly (which is what you seem to be suggesting above) will eventually get into such bad repute that something will be done. You don't have to be at the center of that, and you will be better off working on other topics. EdJohnston (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- You suggested a topic ban, I quoted you, and then you said nothing, so I feel a little exposed. I'll look for another admin, and if you have any other thoughts, I watch your talk.Legacypac (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Abortion sanctions
As I understand it, the community imposed sanctions on abortion pages that included discretionary sanctions and 1RR violations. ArbCom took over the discretionary sanctions but the 1RR violations would still be a breach of the community sanctions (see WP:GS). My first question: is that correct? My second question: if I sanction someone for breaching 1RR (which I did), does it get logged at Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Abortion/Log or at WP:ARBAB? I sure wish these things were simpler.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now, I don't know much about this stuff, but I did notice that at WP:GS, it says that the old log has been superseded. If you go to the Abortion arbitration case, you'll see the "Log of blocks, bans, restrictions, and semiprotections". It includes 1RR violations "inherited" from the community sanctions, implying that blocks for 1RR should be logged there. Notice the "Since case closure" section. RGloucester — ☎ 06:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed that, too; hence, my second question above. Even if that's so, it doesn't make the initial page "obsolete". It just means violations shouldn't be logged there. Anyway, I'm going to bed. Misplaced Pages wears me out. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- There is no firm answer, but there shouldn't be any problem if you continue to log Abortion 1RR violations at WP:General sanctions/Abortion/Log. Nothing prevents the Committee from giving new instructions about how to log these 1RRs if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 14:09, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I noticed that, too; hence, my second question above. Even if that's so, it doesn't make the initial page "obsolete". It just means violations shouldn't be logged there. Anyway, I'm going to bed. Misplaced Pages wears me out. Take care.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now, I don't know much about this stuff, but I did notice that at WP:GS, it says that the old log has been superseded. If you go to the Abortion arbitration case, you'll see the "Log of blocks, bans, restrictions, and semiprotections". It includes 1RR violations "inherited" from the community sanctions, implying that blocks for 1RR should be logged there. Notice the "Since case closure" section. RGloucester — ☎ 06:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
Violation?
Can you have a look at this thread and clarify if topic ban was violated by a user or not? Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Left a comment there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just updating you, TheSawTooth is now indeffed, check WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good to know. I'm glad the issue is settled, though I don't remember User:Highstakes00. EdJohnston (talk) 00:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just updating you, TheSawTooth is now indeffed, check WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Highstakes00. Thanks OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 23:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Alon12
I have warned him that if he posts anything more to his talk page other than agreement to leave that article alone so that he can edit elsewhere, I will go to WP:ANI to request that his talk page access be revoked. I do see that he is following a common tactic of disruptive editors and arguing that every administrator who has touched the case is now involved. If he continues raging, either you or I can go to WP:ANI. (This has little or nothing to do with the other editor, who is differently out of control with a bizarre allegation of sockpuppetry.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- I wish there was some path to a negotiated solution, but at User talk:Alon12 he won't acknowledge the slightest problem with his edits. If he wants to appeal to ANI of course he can do so, but otherwise I think we've done everything reasonable. Any admin can respond to his unblock request if they want to. EdJohnston (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
SNSD and SDS
Hi, the user The Destroyer of Nyr had started an edit war on Alliance of Independent Social Democrats page and Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina) page. He is reverting my edits, deleting sources and adding not reliable sources on this pages. He did not even want to join the discussion. So I ask you to protect pages. Thanks--Serb1914 (talk) 17:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
- You are looking for a source that this party is anti-European? You've provided an article from novosti.rs but it is in Serbian. If there is nothing available in English on this party's view of Europe, maybe you can translate a few sentences and include them in the article. EdJohnston (talk) 00:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Serb1914 started the edit war by reverting posts backed by legitimate claims and sorces several times. Please sanction him and stop him from reverting my edits and continuing to edit war. He did not try to get consensus before reverting my posts, so I don't see any reason to allow his version of the article, and forbid mine. (Despite the fact that mine has sources and claims, while his is based on "general information"). Thank you. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 20:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Continued edit warring
Turning your attention to this edit history to show the edit warring from today, as you recently closed this 3RRN thread. It has continued and has gotten tiresome. If you have a moment to check it out, please do. Gloss 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
- This has been discussed at User talk:Winkelvi. EdJohnston (talk) 00:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- You might be interested in knowing this happened. I reported it here . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 09:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- That's not vandalism. That's a user preparing for a redirect. See the diff in the context of the page history, not in isolation. Viriditas (talk) 09:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- User:Winkelvi can call it what he likes, but he refuses to co-operate with a consensus at Talk:All About That Bass that the music video warrants an article of its own, and the article being redirected was an exact replica of the section on All About That Bass itself. - Lips 09:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI, I've blocked all 3 parties for 48 hours. This continuous back and forth at multiple pages has gotten out of control and ridiculous, as has the vitriol spilled across to multiple talk pages. Just giving you a heads up since actions are being discussed here, too. only (talk) 11:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable. The multi-article warring couldn't go on much longer; something was bound to happen. EdJohnston (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Since you took the last one (thank you)...
Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:CallAng222_reported_by_User:NeilN_.28Result:_.29 --NeilN 01:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion in which you are mentioned at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring by Twobells. The thread is Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Twobells reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: ). Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 13:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- I have commented there. EdJohnston (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism at Pharmaceutical industry
Hi Ed, I don't know if we have a policy for first time offenders with respect to vandalism (my personal opinion is one-strike-you'reout would be reasonable), but this seems like a pretty clearcut case.
https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pharmaceutical_industry&diff=643677132&oldid=643422639
How to proceed? Formerly 98 (talk) 16:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Now blocked 48 hours for vandalism. Thanks for reporting, EdJohnston (talk) 17:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Hello
When you have time, could you take a look on the message i wrote on my talk page? thanks. --HistoryofIran (talk) 18:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- It is hard to see the origin of the word Atabeg to be such a big deal, and worth risking a block for. But if you care that strongly, couldn't you set up a formal WP:RFC at Talk:Atabeg? If you want any help in setting that up, I could assist. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Nah.. never mind. I don't really care that much, i just hope that he won't continue these tactics (make disruptive edits - ignore what a user says - wait until the user reverts the edit and revert it again - report the person) - honestly, i feel cheated. Anyway, thanks for the suggestion, it will probably be useful for me in the future. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:16, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Mass page moves
I've just spotted someone who has been making a lot of page moves recently and seems to have an interest in the Pashtun area, which is pretty toxic at times. Certainly, some of the moves do not seem to be justified and I have noted a couple at User_talk:Khestwol#Article_move. The latter of the two mentioned there - Ahmadzai moved because it might be confused with Ghilji - is particularly odd.
I realise that this is probably outside your sphere of knowledge in a content sense but I think you do work at WP:RM and so might have some thoughts? If not, could you suggest an appropriate person or venue? Thanks. - Sitush (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Try asking at WP:RMTR. It has a section for 'Reverts of undiscussed moves.' Normally the old titles are speedy restored until such time as a move discussion occurs to justify the new title. EdJohnston (talk) 21:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
- Great, thanks. I don't think I have seen that one before! Things are looking up a bit, per subsequent discussions on the user talk page, but I will bear it in mind. - Sitush (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
Dark Knight trilogy to The Dark Knight Trilogy move
Hi,
I think something went wrong with your move of Dark Knight trilogy to The Dark Knight Trilogy. It looks like the article ended up deleted, and both the old title and new title are now redirects (the new title redirects to itself). Can you please restore the article at the new title. Thanks. Calathan (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. I think this is now fixed. I must have hit a button twice by mistake. EdJohnston (talk) 19:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
SDS an SNSD 2
Can you please protect this two pages: Alliance of Independent Social Democrats and Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina), because now the user is reverting edits and deleting sources from an anonymous IP address. Thank you very much--Serb1914 (talk) 12:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- Semiprotected both, for now. EdJohnston (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Winkelvi
Mentioned you here User_talk:Winkelvi#Block_review. Courtesy notification, up to you whether you want to comment or not. NE Ent 14:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
SDS and SNSD 3
How can you protect an article full of lies and without any legitimate sources or proof? You said we should get consensus with Serb1914, but he never asked for the consensus of others? I am deeply disappointed to see that wikipedia is overseen by admins who have double standards and do "selective justice". He started the edit war, yet you protect his fake version of the article (which is not even true). How is it that, when he reverts other peoples edits without any reason, it is considered normal, yet when someone else does it, it is deemed "edit warring" and "vandalism"??? In the case of documented information vs sourceless subjective info, you choose the latter. I definitely recommend removing the protection so that an objective version of the article can be estalished. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 17:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
- These articles are only semiprotected; you should still be able to edit. If the IPs belong to you, you should be aware that it violates our sockpuppet policy to conduct a dispute using multiple accounts. I previously left a message on your talk page explaining how you can work for consensus. The page at WT:BiH is available to get the views of others on Bosnian matters. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
FYI
The guys are battling for a few days in several pages. Each made a 3RR violation here. But I would hate to report them to 3RRNB: they are good contributors. Maybe some kind of a warning? My very best wishes (talk) 03:51, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't see an actual 3RR there, and the two guys are discussing this quite a bit, mostly on user talk. Each of them is already notified under WP:ARBEE in case of further trouble. EdJohnston (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK. I also noticed a discussion between two other users on your talk page. You gave them notices and protected the article in dispute. It seems that one of them just resumed edit warring on this page, immediately after expiration of your protection , without having consensus on this article talk page. Given my previous history, I will not participate in these disputes any longer. Just letting you know as an admin who protected this article... My very best wishes (talk) 17:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
St. Augustine movement
Thanks for closing the RM discussion at Talk:St. Augustine movement. Can we have the article unprotected now so we can implement the decision? Dicklyon (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- The article is move protected for three months but the text of the page is not protected. EdJohnston (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sorry, I misread the history. Dicklyon (talk) 01:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Appeal topic ban
Would you mind advising me of the procedure to go about appealing the topic ban issued to me through An/I in the I/P area.--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 07:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- By looking at WP:RESTRICT, I notice you are topic banned from Tea Party articles. You can appeal this via WP:ARCA if you want. A review of WP:ARBPIA doesn't indicate that you have any I/P sanctions. If you know of any other ban please link to it. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's strange, was there a time limit on this?--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Why not ask User:Deskana for his advice on how to appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I've done so,but explain, please, why you didn't simply explain the process yourself? Is that outside the scope of your ADMIN duties?
- Personally, I'd rather not deal with you or Deskana again on this website.--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 20:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Given that the topic ban was under discretionary sanctions, the appeals process is here. As mentioned in the "important notes" section, you can skip going to the enforcing administrator (but the consequence is that you eliminate that avenue for review in the future). If you already knew all of this, I apologize for jumping in. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks to Tgeairn for the link. Ubikwit, the other admins at AE will often want to know the opinion of the sanctioning admin about your appeal before they make up their own minds. So getting a response from him is worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- I overlooked that your I/P topic ban was in fact logged, as User:Tgeairn has observed on another page. Under the new logging system it can be seen at WP:AC/DS/Log by searching for your name. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- OK, no problem. Thanks. I've filed an appeal at AE, as Deskana seems to busy to reply. --Ubikwit見学/迷惑 16:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- I overlooked that your I/P topic ban was in fact logged, as User:Tgeairn has observed on another page. Under the new logging system it can be seen at WP:AC/DS/Log by searching for your name. EdJohnston (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks to Tgeairn for the link. Ubikwit, the other admins at AE will often want to know the opinion of the sanctioning admin about your appeal before they make up their own minds. So getting a response from him is worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) Given that the topic ban was under discretionary sanctions, the appeals process is here. As mentioned in the "important notes" section, you can skip going to the enforcing administrator (but the consequence is that you eliminate that avenue for review in the future). If you already knew all of this, I apologize for jumping in. --Tgeairn (talk) 21:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Why not ask User:Deskana for his advice on how to appeal. EdJohnston (talk) 14:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Hmm, that's strange, was there a time limit on this?--Ubikwit見学/迷惑 14:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
Large Bonds Issue
It doesn't matter whether he is serious. I think that he is serious, in that he really believes this theory. If he doesn't believe it, then he is only a troll. As you and I know, I reported him at the board where I did because he had violated 3RR, and you warned him. Action under discretionary sanctions would require persistence after an alert, and we know that I alerted him.
It is just as well that he uploaded the images to Misplaced Pages rather than to Commons, because Misplaced Pages has a good deletion policy, and Commons is a mess. If (as we doubt) the images are real, but are secret, then that is its own reason for deletion, because Misplaced Pages is not Wikileaks (and, unlike Wikileaks, is in the United States), and secret images are not available under public domain or a copyleft. (Secrecy, like copyright, is a special form of intellectual property, and we do not steal intellectual property, even if it is questionable intellectual property.)
One of three things will happen. He will find other areas to edit (least likely but best). He will resume problematical editing and be sanctioned. He will go away.
Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Back in the old days when cowboy admins walked the earth he would be already blocked. This way he gets a chance to prove he is actually in outer space before getting blocked. Your info about copyright on secret images is interesting. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, as to secret images. If the image is real, but is secret, then its publication is forbidden by the Espionage Act, for which the penalties are even more severe than violating copyright. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
- A conspiracy theory that Freemasons started the World Wars in order to steal all of the world's gold is fringe, but would have to be dealt with by the community or the ArbCom. A conspiracy theory that Freemasons started the World Wars in order to steal the world's gold, and that subsequent events resulted in destruction of the World Trade Center has already been decided by the ArbCom. Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
Tulisa
Thanks for Talk page message, yes, have indicated on singer's Talk page that agree with AndrewA new dab being made the baseline. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
Are you online?
Ed, you online atm? I saw you've been active at the 3RR noticeboard. Can you have a look at semi-protecting Stargate and perhaps blocking the IP who keeps vandalising that page. There's a few of us who have been reverting the more obvious instances. It's been an ANI for a couple of hours but most northern-hem admins are asleep. The IP now seems determined to do as much damage as possible before being blocked. St★lwart 06:01, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Semiprotected Stargate one month. EdJohnston (talk) 06:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Brilliant, mate, much appreciated. I'll close the ANI thread. St★lwart 07:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
PabloOsvaldo17
I restored the block notice which he then removed again. Murry1975 (talk) 17:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- People are allowed to remove block notices, though they can't remove any declined unblock requests. EdJohnston (talk) 17:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- AH, thats a bit counter intuitive. Thanks. Murry1975 (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- PS he is going off on one, accusing of discrimination based on his (unknown until now) autism. Murry1975 (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
BPS
Serb1914 has now gone on the offensive. He is posting ludicrous claims about Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović (without any sources) and associating it with extremism. Do you now see what you have done? I URGE you to IMMEDIATELY protect the page, in order to preserve its true, original content, just as you protected his pages. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Please link to any place where you have tried to discuss this with him. I am leaving you a notice under WP:ARBEE because you haven't accepted any of the prior suggestions of how to resolve these quarrels. EdJohnston (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Personal attack on you
I don't think The Destroyer Of Nyr is going to go quietly. See User talk:Meters#BPS and Serb1914 Meters (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism and edit war
- The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I ask you to block The Destroyer Of Nyr. He have attacked me personally promoting violent Bosniak nationalism and is starting again an edit war without sources. This is outrageous I claim a reaction from Misplaced Pages. --Serb1914 (talk) 22:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- Sigh. Please continue whatever you were doing previously. If User:The Destroyer Of Nyr prevents you from actually doing your work, bring it up with an admin. And if you want me to look into something, please link to where the problem is occurring. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 23:06, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
Serb 1914
- Serb1914 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I ask you to block Serb1914 as he is continuing to wage edit wars on several articles. This cannot be tolerated. I (and other contributors) can not even work normally. The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk) 23:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
And he is promoting violent Serb nationalism, Greater Serbia and even denying the genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Destroyer Of Nyr (talk • contribs) 23:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- In your opinion, does 'working normally' include discussing your ideas with other editors? You and User:Serb1914 could be blocked by any admin for breaking the WP:3RR rule. It looks like you have made nine reverts at Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina). If you expres willingness to wait for consensus, you might be able to avoid a block. The simplest thing for me is to block both of you, if some other admin doesn't do so first. EdJohnston (talk) 23:29, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
I've started a talk on the talk page of The Destroyer of Nyr and on the page SNSD, but he refused talk and started violent edit war and personal attacks, so the situaton is very clear.--Serb1914 (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
- They're both at or past 4RR today on Bosnian-Herzegovinian Patriotic Party-Sefer Halilović, Serb Democratic Party (Bosnia and Herzegovina), and Alliance of Independent Social Democrats. Meters (talk) 23:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)