Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

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

Administrator instructions

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule. Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.
You must notify any user you report.
You may use {{subst:an3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

Additional notes: Feed-icon.svg You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
  • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
  • 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 than 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 the 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.

User:Truthwillsetyoufree123 reported by User:Bbb23 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Jamie Leigh Jones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 02:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Biased and slander- see actual sources."
    2. 02:09, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "3 sources justify the EEOC statement and I have included the EEOC determination letter."
  2. Consecutive edits made from 01:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 01:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 01:03, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Please see EEOC actual court document. Wikipedia needs to at least be accurate."
    2. 01:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Not Accurate- Jones had PTSD per 9 doctors at trial."
    3. 01:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* External links */"
    4. 01:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Further reading */"
    5. 01:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "The title to the amendment was missing"
    6. 01:24, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Midding another law that was passed due to Jamie Leigh Jones testimony to congress"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 00:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:48, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Amendment is relevant to this Wikipedia."
    2. 00:50, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Jones's allegations */"
  4. Consecutive edits made from 00:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC) to 00:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 00:17, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "I used a court document- the origional EEOC determination. The WSJ is inaccurate. Please see the actual EEOC determination"
    2. 00:18, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "/* External links */"
  5. 00:11, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Added Congressman Ted Poe's Testimony on Case"
  6. Consecutive edits made from 23:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC) to 00:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
    1. 23:49, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "Actual EEOC determination letter- Some of the articles lied about the determination. It was in Jamie Leigh Jones favor."
    2. 23:53, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "EEOC findings were inaccurate. They are now corrected per source."
    3. 23:56, 22 July 2017 (UTC) "/* Jones's allegations */"
    4. 00:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "She does not have histrionic personality disorder- this was not her therapist or physician. This is a living person"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 02:02, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Jamie Leigh Jones. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Hopefully, I did this right. Not used to using Twinkle for this. New user has an obvious agenda. Bbb23 (talk) 02:15, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The agenda is to have accurate and unbiased information on this page, this page is laden with inaccurate information. I have corrected the information and added multiple sources. Please do kindly allow the corrections as this is a living person that deserves accurate information on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talkcontribs) 02:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The user has stated on my talkpage that they are the article subject, but I'm not sure this needs to go through those channels for verification at the moment since this seems like a pretty standard new-user issue. The user will hopefully learn about policy through explanation/discussion on article and user talk pages, and with that goal in mind I think temporary semiprotection might be better. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 04:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
  • @CambridgeBayWeather: I feel a bit like those editors who badger a voter at RfA, but I'm having trouble figuring out what semi-protection achieves. The new user is autoconfirmed.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Template:Bbb23. Just like the goggles it "does nothing. Changed it to ECP because I can't count beyond three. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:40, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
And I don't know how to make a template work, Bbb23. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:46, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@CambridgeBayWeather: Well, at least you could have played Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
@Bbb23: Sorry, I didn't realize Truth was autoconfirmed. :/ –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 03:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

BOB123 is reverting changes even though I have provided plenty of evidence that this page is biased and several of the facts are untrue. Please delete the entire page, this is a living person and is slanted to KBR Halliburton. This is not a representation of all of the things Jamie Leigh Jones has done in her life. There is plenty of items in Jones' favor that are evidence based on the talk page that Bob123 keeps reverting. Remove the page please.Truthwillsetyoufree123 (talk) 17:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:RichardKnight reported by User:Insertcleverphrasehere (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Guizhou Institute of Technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
RichardKnight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 11:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Referencing"
  3. 11:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  4. 04:37, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Referencing"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 11:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Caution: Removal of content, blanking on Guizhou Institute of Technology. (TW)"
  2. 11:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Guizhou Institute of Technology. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 05:38, 23 July 2017 (UTC) Steve Quinn attempted to engage with the editor about the issue on the talk page, unsuccessfully.

User is very keen on not having page curation tags on the very under-sourced new article they have created on the Guizhou Institute of Technology. I warned them about 3RR when they were at 3 reverts, and also told them on their talk page (after the second removal) that removing tags from the article when the issues haven't been addressed is not appropriate, the user does not seem keen on actually improving the article, but rather seems devoted to disrupting the page curation process instead, going so far as to use the edit summary of "Referencing" to refer to their removal of tags. The editor's talk page clearly demonstrates a history of disruptive behaviour before this incident. Please block. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:06, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

The edit warring is even worse over on the first version of the article before it was draftified: Draft:Guizhou Institute of Technology. With removal of tags having started there, as well as removal of CSD tags. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 12:22, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Steve Quinn:

User:RichardKnight's behavior is uncooperative, disruptive, eschews helpful feedback, and results in ownership issues. RichardKnight created Guizhou Institute of Technology on December 26, 2016 [1].

It can be seen this is a poorly made page fundamentally lacking according to Wikipedia standards.

By the time I came along seven months later, the article was still in such poor shape that I erroneously requested speedy delete [2].

The tag was appropriately contested and removed [3]. I then appropriately tagged the article for not citing sources, copy editing, and notability. I also removed superfluous material for clarity [4]. RichardKnight removed the tags [5].

I restored the tags with rationale [6] "Please do not remove tags without addressing the issues. This is article is poorly added to the mains space." I also left a message on their talk page [7].

I then moved the page to the draft space [8]. RichardKnight then created a content fork by recreating the page in the main space, for which I left a tag on the draft [9]. Richardknight blanked the draft space page [10], the content fork still exists here. The content fork somehow has me as the creator and this is not the case (see edit history of that page).

Richardknight also contravened WP:NPA, leaving a message on my talk page accusing me of vandalism [11]. I noted that Richardnight has been engaged in troll-like behavior [12].

I also request a block for Richardknight, this action seems appropriate. I appreciate Insertcleverphrasehere bringing this issue to the Edit warring noticeboard, this situation is at the point where something needs to be done. Apologies for the length of this post, a lot happened in a short time. Steve Quinn (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 22:04, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

User:OnkelCharlie reported by User:Rikster2 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [13]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]
  5. [18]
  6. [19]
  7. [20]
  8. [21]
  9. [22]
  10. [23]
  11. [24]
  12. [25]
  13. [26]
  14. [27]
  15. [28]
  16. [29]
  17. [30]
  18. [31]
  19. [32]
  20. [33]
  21. [34]
  22. [35]
  23. [36]
  24. [37]
  25. [38]
  26. [39]
  27. [40]
  28. [41]
  29. [42]
  30. [43]
  31. [44]
  32. [45]
  33. [46]
  34. [47]
  35. [48]
  36. [49]
  37. [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: [52]

User:OnkelCharlie and User:Zamekrizeni have been engaged in an edit war over what I think are fairly minor changes to the article Braydon Hobbs for more than ten days. Yesterday I warned both users about edit warring and reverted the article back to a version that included Zamekrizeni's additions and OnkelCharlie promptly reverted my edits. Both editors' actions deserve scrutiny, but in my opinion Zamekrizeni at least tried to communicate with OnkelCharlie via edit summary and on the user's talk page and via edit summary. He/she also asked for help at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Basketball. He/she should have also started a conversation on the article talk page, but I contrast this behavior with OnkelCharlie, who has yet to communicate rationale behind his/her reversions; in my estimation, the two versions of the article are fairly close and aren't worth an edit war. As an uninvolved editor, I don't really care what action is taken, it is just disruptive and needs to stop. Rikster2 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

I am pretty confident that User:OnkelCharlie is evading the block as User: Exactly the same set of articles edited. Rikster2 (talk) 08:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Doug Weller (Result:24 hours)[edit]

Moors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 11:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792085512 by Doug Weller (talk)"
  2. 10:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792075681 by Laszlo Panaflex (talk)"

# 07:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC) "it has nothing to do with the moors"

  1. 06:20, 24 July 2017 (UTC) ""
  2. 18:51, 23 July 2017 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Three-revert rule on Moors. (TW)"
  2. 10:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC) "Warning: Removal of content, blanking on Moors. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Doug Weller has no idea about the moors he keep posting random modern images of Africans that has nothing to do with the history of the moors and he keep posting fake stuff that if you check the reference you will see no mention of what he is saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 13:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I've counted wrong. This IP (who has clearly been around this article before) was reverted by User:Aṭlas and User:Laszlo Panaflex once each. Doug Weller talk 12:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
As I said, changing a quote[53] and sourced text, both of which mention Berbers until the IP removed any mention of Berbers. Looks like the article needs protection again. Editing in bits as I'm baking! Doug Weller talk 12:56, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

the User:Doug Weller has no idea what he is talking about again, the book here which he is taking quote from is "Moorish Spain" By Richard Fletcher at page 10 the book used assumption without any reference or any evidence. what we know for sure and it was clear evidence it was invasion by the Umayyad Caliphate which is Arabic country and the army was heavily formed of "Qahtanite" arabs and later on "Qays" and later on they become rival. soo saying arabs where little on spain doesn't make sense51.235.83.22 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Just to note not my quote (although the IP doesn't deny changing it although he/she clearly doesn't like it), just as I haven't posted random images, or indeed I believe any images, although I have quite some time ago reverted some deletions. I've asked for protection. 14:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User: was asked to discuss his issues with the content at the talk page, but he instead reverted again, without explanation. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

So that's 4 now. Yet another editor has restored the page. Doug Weller talk 14:49, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Doug Weller i have already put explanation, do you think we really not gonna check the reference to see if what you putting in the page match it or not? keep your opinion to yourself no care. either you put legitimate reference or leave the page. (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And the IP has reverted again -- that's five, for folks keeping score at home, as for his substantive objections, the content is absolutely supported by the source he disputes (see, e.g., pp. 1, 19). Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

And six. Still no discussion at talk page. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours only (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The user has migrated to IP, where he has added three more reverts. That's nine by my ciphering -- a couple more and I'll have to take a shoe off! Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

The new 37.* IP has been blocked and the page has been semiprotected two weeks by User:Ad Orientem. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Harvey Milligan reported by User:Agricolae (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Francis Pigott Stainsby Conant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harvey Milligan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [54]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [55]
  2. [56]
  3. [57]
  4. [58]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

Has not addressed concern raised on Article Talk page; has made a contribution on my User Talk page [61]. Agricolae (talk) 15:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Concern raised on Article Talk page has been referenced by inclusion of two viable references - Burke's A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry - 1838 (page 792). and The Manx Sun. Saturday October 6th, 1860 (page 6). In the context of the subject, the lineage of the subject's family is relevant as the subject was descended from a long line of English nobility going back to the Norman Conquest - as referenced. I have undertaken considerable work on the subject's page, this has included the creation of a biographical section with additional information on ancestry, education and marriage. Through my research I was able to correct the false year of the subject's birth - from 1810 to 1809 (with viable reference) in addition to which I was able to provide information on the family home and information on the subject's appointment and tenure as Lieutenant Governor of Isle of Man, because of this additional work the article has been considerably enhanced - proof of which is the fact that I received an acknowledgement from User:Fayenatic london who has also contributed to the article. The concern raised is tenuous at best. By simply citing that it violates WP:NOTGENEALOGY, plus it is not reliable, without giving a valid reason as to why, when reliable sources have been referenced, would indicate that the complainant's reasoning is open to question, as someone who has written well over 100 Wikipedia articles, including several biographies, and in addition to which providing referenced information on numerous others, I would contend that the article as written and referenced conforms to the standard expected of Wikipedia. Harvey Milligan (talk) 17:49, 24 July 2017. (UTC)

User:Harvey Milligan has now reverted four times. I hope he will consider reverting his last change and promising to wait for consensus. Otherwise a block for WP:3RR violation appears likely. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
This appears to be nothing short of intimidation. The proposer makes no structured argument and I will not be bullied into changing a well researched contribution which has taken me a considerable time to construct. If my contribution to this article is to be held in such contempt, then I shall withdraw every part of my contribution and allow it to revert to the format prior to my contribution - which incidentally includes an incorrect birth date of the subject. Harvey Milligan (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2017. (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours. Following the WP:Edit warring policy is not optional. EdJohnston (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Sheldonium reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: List of Croatian inventions and discoveries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sheldonium (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent nationalistic edit-warring to expand this list with entries from the ludicrous end of tenuous.

See history for the clearest view of this. It's past double bright-line by now.

Some discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Technology#National_invention_categories, where the only consistent calls seems to be multiple editors who favour deleting the entire tree as unworkable POV magnets.

It is also likely (quack) that this is yet another sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Filipz123/Archive, although that has been rejected as "distinctive differences" (but those are unspecified).

Although not the instigator of this, those reading this should also be aware of Carlo0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who is probably in breach too. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

They seem to be aware of this ANEW filing already, but have pitched in anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
See this attack[[64]] and these deletions at the list of English inventions.[65] Doug Weller talk 20:16, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Thetruth16 reported by User:Object404 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Ferdinand Marcos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Thetruth16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. (reverting back Imelda Marcos' contention regarding the source of Marcos' wealth - now more concise.)
  2. (rewrote and added a more concise version of the 'economy' paragraph in the Lead)
  3. (cases filed against Imelda on ill-gotten wealth spearheaded by PCGG which was covered in earlier part of the paragraph . Also preceding paragraph even mentioned 'Imeldific' and the couple's 'kleptocracy')
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

User:Thetruth16 has started resuming edit warring after his blocking 3 days ago and is reinstating content removed by other users during his previous edit war in the preceding section above. -Object404 (talk) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Support I have had a brief interaction with Thetruth16 and it seems as though he is trying to push his personal point of view here...TJH2018talk 17:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
User:Thetruth16 is a repeat offender, despite multiple warnings as seen in his talk page. This is at least the third time he has engaged in edit warring and he seems to be incorrigible. -Object404 (talk) 18:05, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Object404 you deleted quite a lot of stuff in the past few days in the lead without going to the talk section. How can I be doing an 'edit warring' if you are not'? Reasons for edits are all properly documented. Yes, the lead was long, so you deleted a lot of context, then I added some of the context back but in a very concise manner. You can accuse of of edit warring if I added back all the things you deleted and/or without making them more concise, or if I'm unwilling to engage you in the talk page Talk:Ferdinand Marcos, which definitely isn't the case now. Thetruth16 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I was not the only one trimming content as the article already had a (Lead too long) template and was massive in size due to sentence creep, which you seem to have been in the middle of doing again, reinstating one by one the sentences removed during the last trim. You can discuss with Drmies who also did some of the trimming. You were adding back the same content which were removed when you engaged in the previous edit war for which you were blocked listed in the section above. -Object404 (talk) 18:31, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Object404 Yes, I added some context back but in view of the long lead issue, I only added them back after significantly summarizing them. After the summary of some deletions were added back, the current version of Ferdinand Marcos not not really longer than the article on Joseph Stalin as I mentioned to you in the talk page Talk:Ferdinand Marcos.
It's not just the length of the sentences but the pertinence to the lead - do they really need to be in the lead article or can they be in their respective main sections in the article? Rearranging the sentences with the same content does not solve this - you just reinstated the sentences/content -- a continuation of your edit war from 2-3 days ago. And for example, the economy sentences you reinstated, the reasons for the economic collapse are more than what you just stated, and then blame all of it on a recession as per "The 1983-85 recession, in turn, brought about elevated poverty, unlemployment levels, and debt crisis a towards the end of Marcos' presidency." when in fact many of Marcos's actions were the cause of extended poverty, unemployment and "crushing debt" (as per citation 37), not just a global and regional recession. You're pushing your own POV. "Fixing" the sentences you inserted and explaining the proper situation would entail lengthening the lead again to ungainly levels, so it's best to discuss the economic factors causing the poverty, unemployment & debt in the economy section, not the lead. -Object404 (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Object404 As I mentioned in the talk page, the long lead is caused by inserts of controversies which have been repeated throughout the lead. How many times were Marcos' military claims refuted in the lead mentioned? How many times was the word 'kleptocrat' and 'kleptocracy' mentioned? How many times were 'brutal' and 'repression' suggested or mentioned? All these repeated inserts critical of Ferdinand Marcos only lengthen the article and are already superfluous. Regarding causes of the 1983-85 recession, these are not my point of view - there's an academic source cited. You have your newspaper sources, and many of these are actually 'opinion columns', but you refuse to acknowledge what other sources stated and you simply deleted them, in the name of 'long lead issue', for the sake of conciseness and just so we don't lengthen the lead, shall place the sources as reasons for recession (both critical and not so critical of Marcos) as a reference after ..due external and internal factors..". Also, saying that debt is 'crushing' is too emotionally loaded and not encyclopedic.
how else would you characterize $28b in 1986 dollars that would take 39 years for taxpayers to pay off, with the low GDP the Philippines had? "Emotionally loaded" or not, that debt incurred by Marcos has been crushing. (word did not come from me) -Object404 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
The term "crushing debt" is used by 3 other published encyclopedias123. Can we therefore not say that the term "crushing debt" is encyclopedic? -Object404 (talk) 20:29, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thetruth16 are you also saying that Marcos was not a kleptocrat? -Object404 (talk) 20:37, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't stretch the number. Debt as of end of 1985 is only $26B. It's big, but in the context of pre-recession and post-recession GDP of $37B and $30b it's not as terrible as you're making it sound like. Current Debt-to-GDP ratio of many industrial countries like US and Japan exceed 100%. Also debt is fungible, so I'm not sure what you mean by it takes 39 years to pay off. Does it mean that debt incurred during Marcos' term has fully been repaid? As far as statistics go, Philippine debt goes higher and higher (it accumulates) as we're running budget deficits up to present. Debt is paid off by issuing new debt or rolling over old debt. Many succeeding Philippine government have issued longer dated debt (25 years) similar to this and I'm not sure if you are going to criticize them for having debt that's 25 years to pay off.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies states $28b in debt to succeeding administration in 1986 -> Debt from Marcos years is still being paid for until 2025 -> 39 years from 1986. -Object404 (talk) 20:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
See Philippine debt as of end of 1985 is $26b. The $28b is the debt at the end of 1986, since Marcos went on exile in Feb 1986 I don't think you should be attributing end of 1986 debt to him. The debt Ibon mentioned is for the Bataan Nuclear Plant - it's not unusual in finance to match the term of the debt against the designed life of the asset (40-50 years?). Besides, it's small in proportion to total debt of 26b. Ibon is known for left-wing anti-debt media exaggeration.
[[User:Object404]|Object404]]] I don't know and I'm not in a position to answer whether he's a kleptocrat or not. What I know is, while he has wealth is far in excess of his salary, he hasn't been convicted guilty (nor is Imelda) of taking money from the government coffers. Other explanations like that Imelda and Enrique Zobel said are plausible but again I don't know if that's true or not. I think that you need to present both sides in Wikipedia rather than just present one side alone and dismiss the other side as "conspiracy theory". Thetruth16 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Please see - That Marcos's wealth came from the stolen Yamashita Treasure is a fringe theory and you are giving it undue weight. Besides, even if Marcos found the Yamashita treasure, the law requires that 50% of it be surrendered to the government, which he did not, so it is still stolen money. -Object404 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
TJH2018 The part inadvertently removed earlier has been added back and not been removed anymore. I don't quite understand your charge of 'I'm pushing my personal viewpoint of view' when all the contributions are well-referenced and definitely not my personal opinion.Thetruth16 (talk) 18:15, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Thetruth, as their name suggests, is on a personal crusade here, with a combination of POV-pushing and synthesis, all executed in edit-warrior style. They should be topic-banned from Marcos and associated articles, really. Drmies (talk) 20:33, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Drmies Personal crusade as my username suggest? Is that an opinion or a fact? You can't be so sure particularly if you are judging based on my username.. Thetruth16 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Don't be silly. I judge your edits on their own merits. Your username does indeed suggest you're here for some kind of truth, yes, and that's not the kind of editor we need. That's my opinion. What's not my opinion is that your apparent whitewashing of the Marcos regime is disruptive--and even if you're not whitewashing, or trying to whitewash, you're still disruptive. Drmies (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
And deleting a large swath of well-cited contributions in the lead in one feel swoop without consulting in talk page or discussing first just like what you did isn't disruptive? You could have at least tried to rewrite and summarize... Thetruth16 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Your creeping Marcos apologist edits left the lead section of the Ferdinand Marcos article unsalvageable/unrewritable/unsummarizeable. Entire sections had to be deleted to turn it in a more manageable size. Please note all that the POV tag "The neutrality of this article is disputed" was placed on the article specifically because of Thetruth16's whitewashing edits back in December 2016. Multiple users have complained about Thetruth16's behavior. Here's an example. -Object404 (talk) 21:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User: reported by User:Eggishorn (Result: blocked )[edit]

Talk:Radha Madhav Dham (edit | [[::Radha Madhav Dham|subject]] | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 18:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 792135534 by Sro23 (talk)"
  2. 14:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC) "Undid revision 791989993 by Eggishorn (talk)No reason for keeping nonsensical comment of a fraud admin.."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

[66] block-evading socks


Also reverting from,, and Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

  • Blocked. Drmies (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

User:ScrapIronIV reported by User:Qerinaceous (Result: )[edit]

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:


Looking at these diffs, I see the OP referencing the reverts done by others, not me. Looking at my own reverts, I see one on the 24th, one on the 22nd, and one on the 21st. I would recommend that any admin examining this consider the apparent socking of the newly registered OP, the involved page has been rife with COI edits by IP's in the past week or so. My own reverts have been to remove updates sourced to a blog by a HuffPo writer whose specialty is not in the valuation of treasures, buried or otherwise. ScrpIronIV 06:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)