Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive180

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:24.68.229.154 reported by Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? (Result: declined)[edit]

User being reported: 24.68.229.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Page: Lone Survivor: The Eyewitness Account of Operation Redwing and the Lost Heroes of SEAL Team 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 00:48, 29 February 2012
  2. 00:54, 29 February 2012
  3. 01:04, 29 February 2012
  4. 01:05, 29 February 2012
  5. 01:12, 29 February 2012
  6. 01:14, 29 February 2012
  7. 01:22, 29 February 2012

Page: Marcus Luttrell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 00:47, 29 February 2012
  2. 00:52, 29 February 2012
  3. 00:56, 29 February 2012
  4. 01:03, 29 February 2012
  5. 01:12, 29 February 2012
  6. 01:21, 29 February 2012
  • Diff of warning: here

Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined. User now appears to be engaging in discussion rather than reverting, while s/he was not before. Report again if edit warring persists. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:95.144.200.80 reported by User:Krenair (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Ashley Blake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 95.144.200.80 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

  • 1st revert: diff
  • 2nd revert: diff
  • 3rd revert: diff
  • 4th revert: diff
  • 5th revert: diff
  • 6th revert: diff
  • 7th revert: diff - this is where the user claims to be the subject of the article.
  • 8th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

I was not involved in this. I did not revert anything on the page or talk about it. This is my first time reporting an edit war so I hope I'm doing this right. Krenair (talkcontribs) 19:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. This is the way to handle it, so yes you're fine. Given that MikeWazowski was also reverting, I could also block him, but I don't think it's within the spirit of 3RR to block someone reverting an attempted whitewashing of an article, especially when the IP didn't identify as the subject until a little while ago. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Scouts Canada[edit]

Request impartial oversite on this site as risk of edit war developing relating to removal of sourced paragraph relation to child sexual abuse. I see the blanking as vandalism (as per repeated blanking of a certain section of the Robert Baden-Powell article), but if an admin considers otherwise could you let me know? Regards, DiverScout (talk) 21:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

It appears this has been resolved and in no need of further attention. Thanks to both of the editors involved for responding in a civil manner. -- Tawker (talk) 22:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Liamfoley reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Abortion in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Liamfoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]
  • 3rd revert: n/a, abortion articles are under 1RR per ArbCom (user's previous reverts of the material, as self and as IP, are [4][5])
  • 4th revert: n/a


Diff of edit warring / 3RR 1RR warning: [6][7][8]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User_talk:Liamfoley#Your recent edits, in which I try very hard to explain policy and am the target of repeated personal attacks for my efforts, followed by reiteration of same ideas here.

Comments:
I took the questioned source (questioned because the source is unreliable on its face and also because the cited survey never appears to have taken place) to RSN because the user refused to, and there has been no support for it there either. (Participation level has been less than ideal, but WP:BURDEN applies.)

(...Also, the first revert up there is actually a 1RR violation as well since it followed less than 24 hours after a previous revert, but I decided to revert it and warn the user against edit-warring in the future, rather than report him for it. This does not seem to have helped.)

Roscelese (talkcontribs) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 15:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User:KIRILL95 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: America's Next Top Model, Cycle 17 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KIRILL95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [14]

Comments:

Adding info about Angelea's disqualification on the show, as cited, there are no reliable sources at the present and there are details in the article's talk page. ApprenticeFan work 17:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I second ApprenticeFan comments, KIRILL95 has repeatedly added her back in despite attempts to get him/her to discuss the matter at the talk page (see here and here) this is now reaching a disruptive level. Mtking (edits) 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Reacespeaces reported by User:Bakkster Man (Result: blocked 24 hours)[edit]

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


Version before user added content: [15]

Previous version reverted to: [16]

Second version reverted to: [17]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [22]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [23]

Comments:

Other users involved in attempting to resolve this edit include User:Gobonobo and User:Fang Aili

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by Toddst1. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:26, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Turvill reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: protected )[edit]

Page: Jeffrey Epstein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

  1. 16:49, 1 March 2012 (edit summary: "put references to the science section and added his financing of national magazines: NY Magazine and Radar. cited NY Times.")
  2. 20:40, 1 March 2012 (edit summary: "WP: CITEWIKI accepted some of the last edits but reverted and changed others. An article has to stand on its own and not just revert to Wiki links. The Program for Evolutionary Dynamics is key for what is accomplished in the field quantive biology")
  3. 20:48, 1 March 2012 (edit summary: "I removed money laundering in the lead because none of the references in the lead refer to money laundering. This is unacceptable blackwashing.")
  4. 21:26, 1 March 2012 (edit summary: "Please cite the Wiki policy that states this. I am going to talk to Ianmacman and others and revert this article to the BLP Noticeboard. There is clearly a cabal of bias. It is not neutral.")
  • Diff of warning: here

Note that the first edit here is a revert by virtue of mostly replicating this one from a couple of days ago.

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Lvivske reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 1 week)[edit]

Page: Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lvivske (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [24]


The article is on a 1RR restriction. When you click the edit button right at top you get a message which states "WARNING: You are allowed to make only ONE (1) revert every 24 hours. Violators of this rule may be blocked." Lvivske is well aware of the rule (and I don't think he'd deny it) - he has warned other editors about it in the past, and has come close to running afoul of it on several occasions, recently and in the past.

Additionally, Lvivske violated the 1RR restriction on February 27th:

I have been mostly observing the article and discussing the main issues on the talk page (including trying to get the disagreeing parties to talk to each other) and noticed this, but in the interest of not inflaming the situation I let it slide at the time. Along the same lines, after Lvivske's 1RR violation today, I asked him to just self-revert it [30] hoping that this could be avoided. He has so far refused to do so and, well, from where I standing is playing at a bit of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT.


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32] [33] [34]... and others, basically the whole lower part of the discussion page.

Comments:

  • After taking a voluntary 3 days off of the article in hopes that the talk page would be utilized and we could reach some sort of consensus, it didn't seem to be going that way so I took the initiative of making invisible the text (figures) under dispute until consensus could be reached. My summary explained that. I was reverted by Marek, so I then proceeded to be bold and adjust the numbers based on the talk page table, and subsequently add the proper references [along with some prose rejigging] to keep the lede neutral based on talk page discussion to that point. Marek The Volunteer wanted me to self revert, but I'm not entirely sure what he wanted me to revert to, because my edits weren't in the same to what he reverted.. One of the edits he wanted me to return was the line on figures including Vistula, which was part of what I was working on rephrasing so that it remained neutral. I asked him on my talk page what he had a problem with and was willing to dicuss...but apparently he'd rather go the bureaucratic route and hope I get blocked rather than hash things out in a sensible manner. I don't know what else to say abut this My post-revert edits weren't what he reverted and my conduct since the 1RR warning has been nothing but mindful of avoiding another edit war.--Львівське (говорити) 04:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, in the first revert, you're *changing* the numbers you don't like. In the second revert, you're *hiding* the same numbers you don't like behind the <- -> code. These are also the same issues which you were edit warring over on Feb 27th.VolunteerMarek 04:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
In one I'm hiding it because it's under dispute and we have other figures on the talk page, in the other I re-adjust the lower bound and add a citation. If I put in the 50 with no source and you reverted me because it was unsourced, and I came back with a source to reinsert it, would that be breaking 1RR?--Львівське (говорити) 04:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes. 1RR applies regardless of what a particular side thinks of their "rightness" in a dispute.VolunteerMarek 05:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
But I didn't revert you, per se, I edited off on a different tangent. If I went back to the well and re-hid the stuff then sure. But I didn't. And I re-added some stuff you said you wanted me to self-revert regardless. This is the wonderful back and forth of editing, no? Edit warring is if it's trying to revert to ones status quo, not trying to find solutions and compromise in how an edit should be done that is acceptable to both parties (hopefully).--Львівське (говорити) 05:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Just dawned on me here ('doh) but I looked at the diffs...the first "revert" I'm being accused of was my first edit since the 27th (it happened on the 2nd). How can I start off with a revert? Wouldn't it be [my edit]/[marek's revert]/[my "revert"]? Putting us both at one (in a worst case scenario)? Who was I even reverting with my first diff?
Additionally, the "3rd revert" listed isn't even a revert. GlaubePL reverted my removal of a picture, so I added a verify tag and started a talk page discussion. --Львівське (говорити) 08:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
WP:REVERT - you should know this by now.VolunteerMarek 08:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
"undoing the effects of one or more edits, which normally results in the page being restored to a version that existed previously." I neither undid nor restored a previous version of the article with that edit. This is just basic WP:CYCLE stuff, not the malicious conduct you're making it out to be..--Львівське (говорити) 15:58, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I've been watching your debate, apologies for not inserting myself sooner. Since I suspect (hope) you would both consider me a friend to both Ukrainians and Poles with no historical internecine EE axe to grind, I'd be glad to read through on your disagreement on figures more closely and offer some suggestions on a more fruitful resolution. Let me know. VєсrumЬаTALK 16:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: Blocked one week for 1RR violation. Previous block was for 72 hours. Any admin may lift this block if the user will agree to take a one-month break from editing the article. EdJohnston (talk) 18:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

I think this was a pretty poor block. I don't see more than one revert here. I see an attempt to find another solution. A revert is just undoing what the other person did. 1RR/3RR would not apply to these sorts of changes. I have no horse in the race cause I know diddly squat about this topic nor do I care one way or the other. -DJSasso (talk) 18:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:Edit warring: 'A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.' The 1RR restriction on this article was discussed at WP:AN in 2009. In his 01:13 edit on March 2 Lvivske comments out the total casualty figures from the info box. In his 02:21 edit of March 2, he reduces a bunch of casualty numbers within the text. The number of casualties is a constant subject of dispute on this article, between editors who favor the Polish or Ukrainian sides. In my opinion, this interpretation of a 1RR restriction follows the expected policy and practice. Updates of the article that were merely style or wording improvements would not be counted as reverts, but changes in casualty numbers are part of the ongoing dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Correct but this wasn't reverting, the edits to me look like they were incorporating both sides opinion and in the one case removing the disputed information entirely until it can be agreed upon which again seems to me like another attempt at neutral ground as opposed to a revert to one "side" of the arguement. This does not appear to me to be a case of I don't like your version so I am reverting to mine. These edits were certainly not reverts. Definitely not to the level of a one week block. And looking at your link to the AN thread...a thread with a whopping 4 people in it not including yourself or Lviske that happened 3 years ago doesn't seem to have that strong a case either. It also points to you being involved in the situation which makes it look even worse. -DJSasso (talk) 19:49, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.150.198 reported by User:Achowat (Result: duplicate report)[edit]

Page: Order of Saint Lazarus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.150.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [35]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Order of Saint Lazarus#User talk:89.100.150.198 - deleting references made by others

Comments: Far more than 4 Reverts, constant edit war (which should be handled at Talk but is currently being gone about in a half-hearted way). While patrolling Recent Changes, I came across this dispute (having no previous interest in French Orders of Chivalry). Seeing references removed, I used my WP:ROLLBACK priviledge. Not knowing of the ongoing content dispute, I can only offer a mea culpa in regards to that. Achowat (talk) 20:03, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User talk:89.100.150.198 reported by User:Unokodak (Result: blocked one week)[edit]

Page: Order_of_Saint_Lazarus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 89.100.150.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


(cur | prev) 20:47, March 2, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479862256 by Achowat (talk). Those still aren't reliable sources. Material without an RS may be removed per WP:OR.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 20:28, March 2, 2012‎ Achowat (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479861173 by 89.100.150.198 (talk)Per talk, and reference) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:22, March 2, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479857896 by Achowat (talk). Rm unreliable sources.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 19:54, March 2, 2012‎ Achowat (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Reverted edits by 89.100.150.198 (talk) to last version by Yopie) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:39, March 2, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479854891 by Yopie (talk). I already have.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 19:33, March 2, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 89.100.150.198 (talk): Use talk page. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:10, March 2, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479685554 by Unokodak (talk). France does not have a royal house.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 19:01, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (User talk:89.100.150.198 - stop your edit war on the article!) (undo)

(cur | prev) 19:00, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479683907 by Unokodak (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 18:49, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (User talk:89.100.150.198 - stop your vandalism of the article!) (undo)

(cur | prev) 13:47, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479639568 by Unokodak (talk). There still isn't a royal house of france.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 13:12, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479575290 by 89.100.150.198 (talk) Please use the talk page instead of deleting in the article) (undo)

(cur | prev) 02:35, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479570493 by Unokodak (talk). RV unexplained change) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 01:52, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479562559 by 89.100.150.198 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:51, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479562135 by Unokodak (talk). Rv unexplained change.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 00:47, March 1, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479560741 by 89.100.150.198 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:35, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479559687 by Yopie (talk). France still does not have a royal house. User editable websites are still not reliable sources. Not in other given ref.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 00:26, March 1, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 89.100.150.198 (talk): See reference. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:25, March 1, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-297)‎ . . (Undid revision 479556754 by Yopie (talk). France still does not have a royal house. France is a republic.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 00:03, March 1, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,796 bytes) (+297)‎ . . (another reference) (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:39, February 29, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-173)‎ . . (user-editable websites are not reliable sources) (undo) (Tag: references removed)

(cur | prev) 23:27, February 29, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,672 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (→‎Recognition) (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:23, February 29, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,673 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Recognition) (undo)

(cur | prev) 23:12, February 29, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,671 bytes) (+101)‎ . . (reference for royal house of France) (undo)

(cur | prev) 21:38, February 29, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,570 bytes) (+71)‎ . . (Undid revision 479477469 by 89.100.150.198 (talk)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 15:43, February 29, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (Undid revision 479346646 by Yopie (talk). Orleans is not the royal house of france. France does not have a royal house.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 20:49, February 28, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,570 bytes) (+71)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 89.100.150.198 (talk): Pleae, read articles about Royal houses, France have Royal house, but is not kingdom.. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 15:50, February 28, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (Undid revision 479259750 by Yopie (talk). France still doesn't have a royal house.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 07:50, February 28, 2012‎ Yopie (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,570 bytes) (+71)‎ . . (Reverted 1 edit by 89.100.150.198 (talk): Rv POV. (TW)) (undo)

(cur | prev) 00:28, February 28, 2012‎ 89.100.150.198 (talk)‎ . . (22,499 bytes) (-71)‎ . . (France has no royal house.) (undo)

(cur | prev) 22:29, February 27, 2012‎ Unokodak (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (22,570 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Recognition) (undo)


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Order_of_Saint_Lazarus#User_talk:89.100.150.198_-_deleting_references_made_by_others

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Order_of_Saint_Lazarus#User_talk:89.100.150.198_-_deleting_references_made_by_others

Comments:


Best regards Unokodak (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week; longer block due to previous blocks for the same behavior; appears to be the same individual. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Bill.williamsfour reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: blocked )[edit]

Page: ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bill.williamsfour (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [41] (03:05, 3 March 2012‎)

  • 1st revert: [42] (03:24, 3 March 2012)
  • 2nd revert: [43] (03:58, 3 March 2012)
  • 3rd revert: [44] (04:22, 3 March 2012)
  • 4th revert: [45] (04:36, 3 March 2012)
Added after report was filed and user warned twice:
  • 5th revert: [46] (05:59, 3 March 2012)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:ACORN_2009_undercover_videos_controversy#Partisan_and_No_Coverage_of_.22Unethical_Behavior.22

Comments:
From the user's talk page when approached about his recent edits:

Jime1138 I never said the articled was retracted. Please pay attention. The statement was retracted and quoting half of a retracted statement is misleading. Get a life because you are obviously enjoying having this terribly biased article out to mislead the public. Did you choose to suck at life or are you paid to do so? (Link)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours. Tiptoety talk 07:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


User:Activist reported by User:Kelly (Result: blocked )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [48]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [54]

Comments:

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Tiptoety talk 07:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Fama_Clamosa reported by User:Taylornate (Result: declinedboth blocked)[edit]

Page: Abductor pollicis longus muscle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fama_Clamosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [55]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Also on user talk with no response: [62]

Comments:
This is not a 3RR violation, but intervention is clearly needed because Fama Clamosa explicitly refuses discussion[63][64]

About two months ago, I merged about ten articles into one. Fama Clamosa is now reverting my redirects. I initially forgot to redirect Abductor pollicis longus muscle and so I completed it recently. I think because of this he saw it as easier to attack, but he is now reverting redirects on nine articles (listed here), has even blanked the recipient article without stating a reason [65], and has falsely reported me for vandalism [66]. He has not posted any discussion with his latest round of reverts.--Taylornate (talk) 00:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

How is that supposed to work if he refuses to communicate? Don't most edit wars involve a dispute of some kind? I'm confused.--Taylornate (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't see any refusal to discuss. I see two people vehemently disagreeing on the talk page (you pointing to what you claim is a consensus on another talk page, which does not appear to be strong consensus to me). Try WP:RFC first, or try WP:M if that fails; my guess is you two can come to an agreement. Magog the Ogre (talk) 17:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I did dispute this with another user but Fama Clamosa explicitly refused to participate and he is the one reverting now. I thought I gave two diffs showing his refusal, but it looks like I made a mistake on one of them. Here they are again:[67][68]--Taylornate (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Please open an RFC or try mediation. Your consensus is not as elusive as you might think: I see at least one other editor who has reverted you: User:Arcadian. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
RFC and mediation are not applicable if both sides aren't willing to participate. Arcadian is refusing to discuss as well, even marking his reverts as minor, and Fama Clamosa is calling me a vandal in edit summaries. If this is not an edit war, what is?--Taylornate (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
For quick context, see this. Taylornate is fighting three different editors here, and has already been instructed that he needs to review Wikipedia:Merging, both before he started this process and after. --Arcadian (talk) 01:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I am familiar with Wikipedia:Merging, my merge was in-line with it, and I've referenced it multiple times in the course of discussion that you are ignoring. The only point relevant to this board is that the editors that disagree with my merge are reverting while refusing to discuss. I won't list here the editors that agree with me because it's irrelevant.--Taylornate (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, I am not comfortable your above use of the word instructed. Do you feel you are in a position to issue instructions to me rather than discuss as a peer?--Taylornate (talk) 02:32, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

────────────────────Fama Clamosa continues to revert[69] and continues to explicitly refuse discussion[70].--Taylornate (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
    • Please take a closer look at the history pages before re-reverting an admin. There is one user that is trying to redirect pages out of existence, and three users (including an admin) trying to stop the destruction of information by restoring the individual muscle pages. If Taylornate really wants to engage in a radical new approach to medical content, s/he would need to generate a far greater consensus before doing so. To the degree that a consensus exists, it is for the preservation of the anatomic content. --Arcadian (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
      • Whether or not the merge should have taken place, and support for or against it, is irrelevant to this board. What is relevant is that even after a block Arcadian continues to revert, to mark the reverts as minor, to refuse to discuss, and believing that as an administrator he has special status in this dispute.--Taylornate (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
        • A few things to note here: 1) Revert warring isn't the proper answer in any case, 2) There is clearly no consensus for the merge - Taylornate is unfortunately just wrong about this - and I note he still hasn't filed an RFC or mediation case and 3) being an administrator doesn't give someone extra clout in a dispute, and using the automatic rollback tool to revert war while engaging in an absolute bare minimum of discussion is terribly unacceptable - unacceptable to the extent that if it continues, he will be on the hook for sanctions according to the last paragraph in the lede of WP:ROLLBACK (I don't say this to shame or threaten him, more as a genuine warning). Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:00, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
          • RFC or mediation is obviously the next step, but the first step is getting the opposition to participate in discussion. If they refuse to communicate at all then RFC/mediation is pointless. Anyway, that's my interpretation of it. If you can point out specifically how it could be useful in this situation then I will file.--Taylornate (talk) 20:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Breadbasket reported by User:Yopie (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Breadbasket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


etc., this was only for last month.

Use Breadbasket is edit warrior in the article Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester, and he reverted all reliable sourced criticism about duke. Alexander Montagu was convicted for fraud and bigamous marriage. This info is sourced by articles in The Telegraph, Daily Mail, Sydney Morning Herald, Houston Chronicle. OK, these newspapers were not scientific papers, but for informations about living people are sufficient.

Problem is, that any critical information about duke is reverted by Breadbasket, without discussion, explanation etc. I and other users tried to communicate with him, without success. Some diffs of attempts in talk page of the article [80], [81] and [82] - without any reply. And attempts in his page [83], he deleted this [84] and new message by other user [85], again without any reply.

I know, that he is not violating 3RR, but his behaviour is editwarring - reverts without explanation or discussion. We can have different opinions about the duke, but we cannot reach consensus without discussion.

Even in his talkpage was 'We do not wish to receive messages here.Same problem with him have Gareth E Kegg, Bridgetfox and Andy Dingley, so this is not only my personal problem.

Breadbasket was blocked for edit warring in same article [86].

There is other notice about edit warring of Breadbasket [87].


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89], [90] and [91] - without any reply.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Yopie (talkcontribs) 12:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi.

A quick comment: I am well aware of the 3RR, and I do not violate this rule in ordinary cases. However, the case above (Manchester) is special. When I again and again have reverted contributions and reversions in the duke's article, I have done it based on (my interpretation of) the BLP rules (i.e. that the 3RR does not apply to critical BLP issues), which say:

‘Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

I do not agree that I allegedly only wish positive content. The fact is that of the present contributors, I am probably the one who for the longest time has followed that article. I know and have seen things that the recently arrived contributors haven't. For example, when I discovered the article, there were absurd sentences like 'In 1992, when still married to X, he married, bigamously, Y'(!). If the article looks relatively clean now, it is not the others' merit, but mine. It was ten times worse than now.

As the history section's edit summaries show, I have several times requested a relevant context. This has not happened; instead, they have, despite the rules, reinserted the same, biassed/exaggerated content. One cannot just drop tabloid oneliners like that and as ‘documentation’ provide a link to the Daily Mail; such serious claims should be presented from at least two points of view (if available) and as soberly as possible. For example, has the duke commented on the bigamy? If yes, why do these contributors not include it in the article, thus making the presentation wider? The BLP rules state the difference between encyclopedic and tabloid:

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.’

Conserning my nine(?) reverts above: I think that it is important to distinguish between good-faith reverts removing ‘potentially defamatory material about living persons’ (like mine) and reverts that obviously are purely non-corporating or destructive. I may agree that I early should have brought the whole case to the BLP noticeboard, but this article is not within my primary field of interest, so I don't want to engage myself too much in it, and a good, solid discussion would demand much more time than I have.

(P.S. Yopie is known at the Wikipedia King of Reverts. I also experience him as notoriously dishonest in his argumentation and his presentation of fact. I do not agree with his description above.)

Greetings,

 — Breadbasket 00:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

If a 'good solid discussion would demand much more time than you have' it is surprising that you have time to continue reverting the article. You've been continuing a campaign of reverts for several months. (This issue was the reason for your block for edit warring back in September). It seems to be generally agreed that the statements about Montagu are true and well-sourced, and what remains is a question of relevance and how to word the article in the best way. Removal of true and well-sourced statements from a BLP is not an exception to 3RR. If you continue to revert without getting consensus for your changes you are risking a block. You still have made no comment in the BLPN discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 05:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait, wait. The potentially defamatory material should never have be reinserted in unedited form in the first place. Even a high school pupil understands that serious cases need a neutral, many-aspected context. It is not a question whether the statements are ‘true and well-sourced’ (but ‘well-sourced’ may be discussed), but about how they are presented. Read also the following in the BLP rules:
‘Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. Be wary of sources that use weasel words and that attribute material to anonymous sources. Also beware of feedback loops, in which material in a Wikipedia article gets picked up by a source, which is later cited in the Wikipedia article to support the original edit.’
This is not a case about what I allegedly have done to make the article worse, but what other contributors have done to make it better,—and the answer is: nothing. They have not provided (Wikipedia requires this) a context that could make the presentation more balanced. They have not even attempted to see or to accept the several-times explained problems in the article. But why? A comment from one of the many revert-contributors might give an idea of their mentality and incentives: Thank you so much for reinstating the only interesting part of the Alexander Montagu article. I shall back you up if needs be. Keep up your great editing. Gareth E Kegg. Many of the contributors are simply non-encyclopedic.
Will an administrator please enter the discussion?
 — Breadbasket 12:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I'm an administrator. Admins are expected to decide at this noticeboard whether reverts are allowed under the WP:BLP policy, and your reverts are not. Your critical opinion of the other editors is not germane. It's your job to convince them, and you've made no effort to do do. You've never commented on the article talk page or at BLPN. If you continue to revert the article without getting consensus, you may be blocked by any admin. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
I had intended to suggest that the case was ended by agreeing that I would stay away from further reverting, and the warning may well be considered as a such solution.
If I had time, I should have shown for example how, before the reverts escalated, BLP tags added by me systematically were removed. Also peerage-relevant information has been removed (I assume that his notability is based on the peerage), for example when I added that the duke also is the 16th Earl of Manchester.
The article is still not neutral. The responsibility lies on them who add content. They have several times been told that content must be (1) neutral and (2) placed in a descriptive context, but they have reinserted the content unedited. These two factors are basic in any serious encyclopedia. I also strongly doubt that the Daily Mail is a reliable source, and I have therefore, earlier, claimed that there should be at least one additional—and intellectually independent—source confirming a claim.
 — Breadbasket 12:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: )[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [92] (for 1st and 2nd revert), [93] (for 3rd, 4th and 5th reverts)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [99]

Comments:
Editor raised the issue of Bangladesh Genocide on Pakistan's talk and while discussing he/she kept on undoing other editors edits related to this content dispute. He/She was warned by User:TopGun of the 3RR in the same discussion. --SMS Talk 05:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Disclosure: I've probably become too involved with JCAla to hand out any blocks or decline them at this point.
  • Statement: The first revert isn't a revert at all, but simply an action (unless I'm wrong, but you haven't pointed to an old version reverted to). The second and third reverts were definitely inappropriate. The final one wasn't edit warring, rather just BRD (thus, assuming I'm wrong about the first revert, this was a technical 3RR violation but not a violation in spirit). Thus, IMO, only the second and third were inappropriate edits.
  • Suggestion: I think JCAla and TopGun need to have an interaction ban as well. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I made a single revert and left a civil warning. He reverted 3 users. So don't start on me when ever someone becomes disruptive. This content was introduced inspite of 2 additional editors (+ those reverting) opposing the content on talk page. Not BRD, JCAla changed the content (that too actually knowing that there was no consensus since he had started a talk page discussion along with it). This is the revert to an old version to the first edit by the way [100]. --lTopGunl (talk) 01:42, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't starting on you at all - I was recommending an interaction ban, because I think you don't work with each other any better than you and Darkness shines do. What's your issue that you would respond so defensively? Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Because me and JCAla can probably both show you diffs where we have simply agreed (even though he usually just opposes me). It's just that this article started facing this editwar right after I nominated for FAC. There have been some previous hindrance and socking to disrupt the FAC before its nomination too by another user. Your comment suggesting interaction ban implies that it is due to my involvement with JCAla which is not the case. To prevent any stereotyping I didn't file here for a 3RR violation instead told an involved user who did some rephrases to fix. Now another user (rightly) makes the report... that was due. I think that was enough to suggest collaboration on my part. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

1) About the supposed reverts, which were none. Also note that some of the above diffs used by User:Smsarmad have been manipulated to make it look like a general revert when it wasn't one.

  • About the second diff: Compare this actual edit as of 07:51, 1 March 2012 to this the diff given by SMS. On content, someone opposed to simply use the wikilink Bangladesh Liberation War as it is and as I had suggested and he replaced it with "armed conflict". I did not revert back to "Bangladesh Liberation War" but instead made the suggestion to use "civil war" instead as it was indeed a civil war. So no revert here. This was the edit in which I added totally new content for the very first time! So no revert either.
  • About the third diff: This is the one in which actually TG interacted with me as he had reverted my new additions. The diff provided by SMS is, however, again a manipulated one. Compare this actual edit as of 09:34, 1 March 2012 to the diff given by SMS. This was my actual reaction to TopGun's general revert. I restored the non-controversial content of my edit and left the rest to be discussed on the talk page. So, yes, this one was one partial revert. That's not an offense in any case.
  • About the fourth diff: This was a single BRD objection to a single sentence of Regentspark's rephrasing - and in the course of that day he rephrased many sentence which I made no reverts to. Actually - BRD textbook style - we both discussed that very productively afterwards on the talk and he changed it taking my reasons into full account. And I let other things of him stand, that I didn't fully agree with. So that discussion is already solved.

=> All in all, i count 1 1/2 reverts, one partial revert restoring the non-controversial part of my edit as a reaction to a general revert of my whole edit by TopGun. And one rejection of one - out of many that day - rephrasing by RegentsPark which was very productively discussed afterwards and which has long been solved.

2) I don't think I need an interaction ban on anyone as I have dealt with everyone appropriately in the recent past. At the article history you can also see that, in fact, I was mostly interacting with User:RegentsPark, not with User:TopGun (only one interaction with him there). I, however, want to point out that I do not find this report anything close to appropriate for several reasons:

Thanks and yes, I am tired of this drama also. Regards, JCAla (talk) 10:40, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok! I admit my report was not that well written, I have amended it (Previous version). @JCAla Sorry for not informing you, I got disconnected (after filing the report) and was out of town for the last three days with no access to Wikipedia, so was not able to inform you. And I don't get what do you mean by other two of your concerns. I would like you to explain these more if you want my response on these. --SMS Talk 14:08, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Look, your current report makes even less sense than the previous one, and I currently do not have the time to again put all those manipulated diffs which try to paint a picture that doesn't exist into the right perspective. On March 1, the Pakistan article underwent a major rephrasing effort with regards to Bangladesh. There was a lot of editing, rephrasing and discussing and I mainly interacted with User:RegentsPark. We discussed very productively and since March 1, his version including some of my input stands. The issue has long been solved and the article is stable. I don't think anyone wants to hear my explaining of why I think this report was made by you. People can think for themselves given the links I provided above. JCAla (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Please do not infer any "connection" from any userpage comments, infact you did show I was the one contacting RegentsPark who did the rephrase instead of actually reporting you to prevent such allegations. The edits in question here are solely your edits. The discussion did take place but you added the content clearly opposed in that discussion anyway. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
You being here, speaks for itself. RegentsPark came to that article before you went to his talk. Even Magog has stated the same opinion as me about two of the four manipulated diffs (of the original report version which were interestingly also used exactly the same way by you on Regents' talk). Leaves me with 1 1/2 actual reverts and Regents' version stands stable for 5 days now. I won't waste any further time on this. JCAla (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Liamfoley reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Abortion in the Republic of Ireland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Liamfoley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [[101]]
  • 2nd revert: [[102]]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [[103]]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[104]] and [[105]]

Comments:

1rr applies on abortion-related articles. User was just blocked two days ago for editwarring on same article (same revert as now). User also seems to have created a sock-puppet and made a rv using that account: [[106]]. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:46, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Two clear reverts (continued from the previous edit war); editor clearly aware of the 1RR on the article, having been blocked for the same reason two days ago. Kuru (talk) 22:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Neogeolegend reported by User:Shrike (Result: 1 week)[edit]

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


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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [110],[111]


Comments:
.The article like all other WP:ARBPIA articles under 1RR rule.This user has broken it and refused to revert.They have history of edit waring.Should probably be warned about WP:ARBPIA sanctions too.--Shrike (talk) 20:26, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 1 week Clear violation; warned and given an opportunity to self-revert. Kuru (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Demdem reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: page protected)[edit]

Page: City-state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Demdem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [112]


Comments:
This user delete fragment of article without consensus. In the description of the changes I exactly explained (3 times) to him - did not help. I am 100% sure that when I go back his edit, he reverted me, again. He does not respect the rules of 3RR, again. Recidivism. Subtropical-man (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I would consider this a clear continuation of the edit war that took place in 2010. As there are two parties in violation, I've protected the page for three days to encourage you to finish the discussion on the article's talk page. Further blind reverts or accusations of "vandalism" after the protection expires will likely lead to blocks. Kuru (talk) 15:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Yogesh Khandke reported by User:14.99.234.43 (Result: Stale)[edit]

Page: Charles Dickens (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yogesh Khandke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



There is a discussion going on the talk page with five-six users involved. All others except this user have agreed that the content is undue and doesnt belong in the article. But he is refusing to listen and is repeatedly inserting the content even after five/six people are reverting him. There is a long discussion in the talk page spanning multiple sections. He is doing it despite the consensus there. He is being careful to avoid the 3RR/24 hour limit, (reverts about once a day) but is continuously edit warring for a few weeks now. A look at his talk page reveals severe POV issues and he has been reported to ANI before. He is also currently edit warring in other articles.--14.99.234.43 (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Hibrido Mutante reported by User:Maunus (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: John Searle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hibrido Mutante (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [129]

Comments:
This is a new and potentially valuable contributor who just needs and administratopr to explain to him how we work by consensus and how we decide what goes into articles and what doesn't. Basically I am not asking for any sanction, just that someone reverts and explains him not to editwar when there is no consensus to include.

Update: He is arguing on talkpage but incoherently, and without responding to concerns expressed by three other editors.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Update: This notice board isn't worth much...·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User:OwenReeceBaines reported by User:NatGertler (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [130]


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

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

Comments: No talk discussion needed because user has been warned on talk page about the specific action (deleting AfD notices). User talk:OwenReeceBaines#AFD_template Removal of AfD templates is generally not a topic for article talk pages, but for user pages. --Nat Gertler (talk) 23:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Rjpsingh reported by User:Sitush (Result: A day)[edit]

Page: House of Tulsipur (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rjpsingh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [135]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [140]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: from here onwards on the user talk page, and subsequently (but after their last revert) on mine. The last edit summary above confirms that they edited while logged out, and their entire user talk page has numerous notes regarding this article. I also did put stuff on the article talk page and think that the respondent is the same person, again editing while logged out.

Comments:

User:Lazyfoxx reported by User:Shrike (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

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


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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [145]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff].There are currently discussion goes on article talk page.Talk:Jesus#Jesus:_A_Palestinian_Jew

Comments:
The user tries to add the word Palestinian and edit waring in other articles too [146],[147].In my opinion he use it as WP:COATRACK to his views about I/P conflict.--Shrike (talk) 11:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

How is it particularly toxic? S/he's engaged in talk throughout and presented reliable sources for the changes being made. And are all the diffs listed revert or attempts to include compromise formulations. Is it the content you find to be problematic? Tiamuttalk
The second edit cited as a "revert" here isn't one and was described by one of the editors vehemently opposed to adding "Palestinian" as a good move. Please note that Shrike hasn't attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page at all and instead chose to run over here to file a report. I see two reverts above, not four. The sanction is pure overkill. Tiamuttalk 20:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Note: Further discussion has moved to User talk:Lazyfoxx. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:LucMar reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


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


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [152]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [153]

Comments:User has been warned, I have used the talk page, etc. I'm passing the ball down to your side of the field now. Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 14:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Blade.--MarshalN20 | Talk 20:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

User:ERIDU-DREAMING reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Right-wing politics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ERIDU-DREAMING (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [154]

  • 1st revert: