Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive158

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Aperitis25 reported by User:DeCausa (Result:Warned for now)[edit]

Page: Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aperitis25 (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: [4]
  • 4th revert: [5]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here, and here on User's Talk page (because User is relatively new, I thought it best to do it there rather than on article Talk page so I could explain WP policies in greater detail.)

Comments:

  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned Try and take the chap to the discussion page. I've left a warning. Come back if this continues. The user will be blocked then. Wifione ....... Leave a message 06:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: stale)[edit]

Page: Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and many, many others
User being reported: Δ (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: [13], reverted without comment minutes later [14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [15], deleted moments later [16] (justified as a "move", but without even a pointer to the new place left)

Comments:
Δ, previously known as Betacommand, was recently released from a two-year restriction barring him from any action relating to non-free content "policing" -- this series of edits makes it quite clear that he's back to his old ways. While this behaviour would be tolerable if he were actually enforcing clear-cut policy, his interpretation of WP:OVERUSE is quite extreme and, in the specific case of fair use images of banknotes in currency pages, strongly disputed by the community, as per the long discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 51#Currency notes. The reverts above were done despite considerable evidence that they are in fact PD! And to top it off, he uses highly misleading edit summaries, eg. describing clearly sourced and attributed fair use images as "copyvio", and regularly threatens users who revert his changes with being blocked. This is not tolerable, and us tolerating it harms Wikipedia. Jpatokal (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

My experience on Banknotes of the Indonesian rupiah, is that he ripped the article apart by removing all of the images (without notifying any relevant parties - Indonesia Wikiproject, numismatics, etc.), then reverted no less than six times, in clear violation of 3RR based only on his personal interpretation of 'overuse'. His behaviour towards others - slapping me with warning templates, reverting first discussing later, is in clear contrast to what he tolerates himself, as shown by his removal of warning and discussions above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.162.117.177 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Bullshit, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Numismatics#Usage_of_non-free_images a notice that was posted over a month ago. Such over usage of non-free content violates our policy and which enforcing it is exempt from 3RR. The burden of proof to include them falls on those who want to use the material not those who remove it. ΔT The only constant 02:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The triangle character seems a bit hot under the collar. he's clearly edit warring. I edit the article once a moment ago and he threatens me with a block (his edit summary), and slapped on a trite boiler plate warning. This has been going on for days. Time for it to end. --Merbabu (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, stop violating the non-free content policy. Enforcing NFC is exempt from 3RR. ΔT The only constant 03:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The talk page discussion clearly support it's pd status. Arguements against that are weak to put it mildly. Your suggestion that my revert to the status quo version is a copy vio and I should be blocked is, well, rubbish. Enforcement of NFC does not excuse incivility and hot-headedness. You all need to take a break. --Merbabu (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale Last revert was over 24 hours ago, so debating the applicability of the 3RR and the NFC exemption is meaningless at this point, we're not blocking someone for an edit war that's been cold for 28 hours now. Courcelles 03:31, 11 May

2011 (UTC)

Oops - silly me. I thought we were talking about this very similar article (same players anyway) --Merbabu (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Courcelles, I think you missed the note above, moved below for reference. So the report was filed within 24 hrs of the 3RR, it was just deleted by another user. Jpatokal (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

This report was originally filed at 10:45, 10 May 2011, but it was removed from the page by Hammersoft (talk · contribs).
  • No, I undid a second report done by Jpatokal ([17]) which modified an existing report, changing its context, and deleting other people comments in the process. I restored [18] the original version, and posted a note to Jpatokal's talk page [19] to that effect. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Δ reported by User:86.162.117.177 (Result: article protected)[edit]

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

User continues to war to remove images that have been in place on the article for years illustrating currently circulating currency in Indonesia according to standard Wikipedia currency article practice. He removed them on 8th May and has continued since then to aggressively revert while a discussion is still ongoing.

He has been advised of WP:3RR policy and it has been pointed out to him that his own personal interpretation of 'overuse' of possibly unfree, possibly public domain images is not sufficient to override this. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Long standing NFC policy clearly shows that such overusage is not allowed. ΔT The only constant 11:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Its not, "possibly unfree" they are non-free. ΔT The only constant 11:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Again, this is your own personal axe to grind. WP:3RR clearly states that one can only exceed 3RR to remove 'content that unquestionably violates WP:NFCC' (emphasis there in source).
WP:NFCC states that 'Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information.' Multiple users dispute that it is possible to convey equivalent significant information by removing all the currency images. It is absolutely blindingly obvious that there is no 'unquestionable' violation in illustrating the seven CURRENT banknotes in use in Indonesia (which may in any case be PD), and you are breaking 3RR over and over again in face of this. There is absolutely NO justification for your behaviour. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 11:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Δ#.CE.94_content_policing_again and Beetstra's post we are required to remove such violations. ΔT The only constant 11:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
It is strongly disputed that there is any violation in illustrating current circulating currency. Ergo you are breaking the rules and should be banned for disruption. 86.162.117.177 (talk) 11:21, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • If someone disputes the non-free status of an image, it doesn't make it free. A dispute over something doesn't suspend policy. User:Zscout370, a copyright knowledgeable previously uninvolved editor, investigated the copyright status of these images and found no evidence that are free. See his posting on the issue. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Note to 86.162.117.177: Do understand that banning Delta does not make the issue of overuse go away. There are likely going to be others challenging the overuse. Do you plan to continue to break the rules on overuse of non-free images and get others who happen to have the same point of view of Delta (and who do try to follow the mission of this encyclopedia) also banned? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

  • I'll certainly be happy to be blocked/banned for removing overuse of non-free images. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:37, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
The article has been protected. It might be a good idea to find a central location to hash out more specific parameters for 'overuse' in the NFCC guidelines. Kuru (talk) 02:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kenzo400 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Devşirme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kenzo400 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [24]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [29]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30],[31],[32],[33]

Comments:

  • Comment:Kenzo400 is just the latest "new" editor to start removing an entire referenced paragraph that he/she doesn't like. Stating "unreliable sources" in the edit summary, yet has not proven that any of the sources are unreliable. --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment:The latest revertion is from a Kenzo4000(which apparently we are to believe is a "different" editor), and mimics the reverts done by Kenzo400. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Tagged and blocked the sock as well. Kuru (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Kostun reported by User:ClubOranje (Result: 48h block)[edit]

Page: 1967–68 Mitropa Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kostun (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [34]
This dates back to beginning of war and technically a WP:BRD by User:Argyle 4 Life


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [41] Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (IP): [42]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [43] on article talk page pointing to WikiProject centralised discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Team_flags.3F

Comments:
Both editor and IP warned prior to 6th edit, as well as other involved editor, User:PeeJay2K3

  • Comment - As one of the mentioned parties above, I believe it behoves me to comment on this matter. A consensus was obtained at WP:FOOTY to remove all instances of so-called "team flags" from the site. In acting on that consensus, I became involved in removing these team flags from the 1967–68 Mitropa Cup article, where User:Kostun has evidently shown considerable resistance to this consensus. In removal of the flags, I provided considerable examples of Wikipedia policy, including WP:MOSICON and WP:OI, as reasons why they should not be used on en.wikipedia. Kostun argued back that they are used frequently on it.wikipedia and that if they were contrary to policy they would not exist at Wikimedia Commons. Obviously en.wikipedia, it.wikipedia and commons.wikimedia are separate projects and subject to different policies and guidelines, so that argument falls down right there. With all that in mind, I therefore treated Kostun's resistance to the established consensus as disruptive editing tantamount to vandalism; and since reversions of vandalism do not count towards WP:3RR, I believe I was justified in making more than three reverts in a 24-hour period. – PeeJay 13:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Andrwsc Minima© (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Thigle reported by NeilN talk to me (Result: 24h)[edit]

Page: Dzogchen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 04:12, 12 May 2011 (edit summary: "Reverting vandalism by non Dzogchen people who think I'm vandalizing the pages")
  2. 04:27, 12 May 2011 (edit summary: "Reverting vandalism")
  3. 04:53, 12 May 2011 (edit summary: "It is sourced. Try reading it. Slowly. Don't claim something is unscourced, when it is.")
  4. 05:26, 12 May 2011 (edit summary: "Happy?")
  • Diff of warning: here


Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [44]

--NeilN talk to me 05:33, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

One more --NeilN talk to me 05:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

He's continuing to revert. I agree with Neil that his behavior is inappropriate. Kevin (talk) 05:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Eh, left him a note, come back if he does it again. Prodego talk 05:53, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
He did so again here. Thanks for rollback btw, huggle really does make killing vandals easy. (I initially RB'ed that diff, but caught myself and redid it with twinkle.) Kevin (talk) 06:20, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours --slakrtalk / 06:21, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Avanu reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: template protected)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: April 28

Diff of edit warring warning: Skomorokh, May 12, SarekOfVulcan, May 2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: April 28

Comments:
There have been extensive discussions on the template talkpage where several editors have told Avanu that the tag should not be changed, but he has nevertheless continued reverting it to his preferred version. There's obviously not a 3RR violation here, but it's definitely an edit warring problem.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:38, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

After discussion on this topic before, I felt I was abiding by Bold, Revert, Discuss. I initially boldly proposed an improvement to the Rescue Template and it was initially *very* quickly reverted (13 minutes later) by Sarek with a reason saying that the template must have the word "rescue" in it. (diff). The insistence on a *specific* word and no other seemed like an illogical choice, especially for a respected Vulcan like Sarek, so, I explained my reasoning further and waited for discussion.
Over 27 hours later, and having 7 editors comment with various pros and cons, I reverted it again since the Talk page commentary was composed of people with no suggestions for improvement, people who seemed to feel this was a losing battle because ARS would strike against any change, and comments saying improvement was a useful thing.
Again, after waiting nearly two and a half days, and going out and doing additional research, providing facts and information to back up my proposal for improvement and change, I reverted to the neutral point of view text again.
This final change was after I had waited for nearly 10 days, and allowed editors to present alternatives and suggestions, but most editors seem to be falling into the 3 aforementioned camps. (1. No change at all - 2. Give Up 3. Improvement is good).
This latest change was reverted by Skomorokh, who is a fairly neutral party in this, and he and I have discussed this (see links below), and it has prompted me to review the WP:BRD guidelines a little closer, so I feel we can work this out positively.
Sarek has shown himself to be a *very* involved admin and editor, and this template *directly* relates to a block he issued. I believe that he is a little too involved and is simply being a little opportunistic with this report, and I hope that a review of the facts shows that I am trying very strongly to abide by WP:BRD. I'm trying to give others time to comment, and after the discussion with Skomorokh, I will also try to propose alternatives, rather than simply saying "no, I insist this is well written". So, again, if I went against WP:BRD, it was not my intent, and I would hope this is recognizable from the pattern of edits in this case. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Avanu, I really don't care all that much about breaking "BRD" - that's just an essay designed to help editors understand how to avoid edit warring. I am concerned about repeated reverts back to the same material despite what appears to be a complete lack of consensus for those reverts. I don't see Sarek as an involved admin in this instance since s/he has taken no administrative action; indeed I'm very glad to see this here instead of in an unblock request. Involved editor, sure, that's kind of how it works. The discussion with Skomorokh appears constructive - can you commit to cease reverting until you have gained consensus for your edits on the template's talk page? Kuru (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, I have no problem committing to that. I've been told I was ignoring BRD, so I made an attempt to focus on that. Despite making mistakes here and there, I'm not trying to intentionally go against the community or consensus, I'm just looking to make positive improvements. -- Avanu (talk) 01:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Then there would be nothing preventative about taking administrative action. As an unsolicited suggestion, it may be better to continue the discussion on the talk page and let one of the other editors there make the negotiated changes to the template; you would then be isolated from any possible edit warring. Kuru (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This would work if several of the editors were not completely opposed to any change, despite a clear indication in the tag's guidelines that a 'rescue plan' should be made, many editors do little more than place the tag, and !vote. I even directly quoted policy from the consensus page, and one of the editors flatly contradicted it. I suggested *and* requested help and guidance in the proper way to solicit outside opinions as per consensus guidelines, these same editors called that canvassing, and this was before I had done anything. In short, I am dealing with a small group of people who are as far as I can tell, completely opposed to improvement, despite claiming to be members of ARS, whose #1 goal is improvement. They have demonstrated ownership of this template (see Template Talk:Rescue#Poll on specific changes that should or shouldn't be made to the Article Rescue Squadron's banner), and really are being very difficult. I'm trying new ideas and taking theirs into account. I would hope this isn't wrong. -- Avanu (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to have to reopen this as the editor in question has made two significant edits after the above here and here (in two parts). At this point call it a lack of WP:CLUE or WP:COMPETENCE, or evidence of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT but it's past the point of disrupting progress on that page. Skomorokh 16:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Note that these edits came after this final warning. Skomorokh 16:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Skomorokh, I have a grasp of what the guidelines say, and I am following recommendations. Am I missing something here, because I am reading the same WP:Edit warring page we all are. Please show me where coming up with a different proposal constitutes edit warring? I have proposed new (and different from before) wording. I'm trying to contribute and trying to incorporate others' comments. It falls in line with what several editors have said they want, and it falls completely in line with Bold, Revert, Discuss. People are welcome to revert and propose alternatives to my proposed wording, and this was discussed prior to being added. If the idea is that no one can propose any new wording until everyone gets on *exactly* the same page on wording, it will be a very long time, since some editors want it exactly as it is now, some want changes, and some editors want it gone entirely. -- Avanu (talk) 16:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I came up with another alternative, keeping the word 'rescue' and leaving the words 'deletion discussion' and 'discussion' in place, while still trying to improve the Template *and* make it line up with its own guidelines for use, and you are calling it edit warring. Now, I have presented facts, I have presented discussion, and I have listened to others. The one thing I have done, that others have not done, is provide suggestions to improve the template, and provided contributions in the Template for that purpose. It is clear from the facts that things need improvement, and I have just today soliticed outside input from the Village Pump and NPOV Noticeboard. I'm not sure how waiting days, weeks, or months for others to come up with positive suggestions contributes to the encyclopedia, but could you enlighten me? -- Avanu (talk) 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
And he removed "help improve the article". That was about as unhelpful an edit to that template as you could possibly make. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I already replied at the Rescue Talk page on the edit comment you left, but I'll include my reply here also, to help others understand the rationale.
TEXT OF REPLY: Yes, I did (in this suggested iteration), because nowhere does the 'Article for deletion' demand people delete the article. So in fairness, why should this tag have a declaration that people "help improve it"? What you didn't mention yet, is that in my proposed wording, I called for people to review the rescue nominator's rationale (in light of the guidelines for its use). Such a rationale would have much more detail and offer a better chance for true improvement than a vague "help improve". -- Avanu (talk) 17:04, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
So after all of this another editor finally proposed a tiny change. Dream Focus - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Rescue&diff=429114299&oldid=429114290 Progress achieved! Change inserted, we'll see if others revert it because *I* added it, or if they leave it alone. Either way, maybe a tiny step forward. -- Avanu (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Your mentality is clear in your above statement, and the constant statements on the ARS talk page. No one is against change for its own sake or because they don't like you. They are against the specific changes you have previously made. A minor change from the word flagged to tagged doesn't make any difference at all. The other changes were quite major, and every single other editor who commented on these specific changes has been against them. Dream Focus 19:11, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I would dare say that most independent observers would probably say the changes I made were minor but significant in important ways. If the tag is going to be misused, and if ARS or others are going to insist on it working this way, then something in the wording of the tag should be changed. If people are willing to remove the tag when it is misused, then I have a lot less of a problem with the tag as written. -- Avanu (talk) 21:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I've protected the template while the content dispute is worked out. I'm very disappointed you broke your commitment to me, Avanu. Kuru (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
My committment to you was this "can you commit to cease reverting until you have gained consensus for your edits on the template's talk page?" I've not reverted since. I've been discussing and proposing new language. "Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert." None of the other editors have made any effort to propose changes (save 1 word by DreamFocus), so I've been working within the guidelines *they* set and proposing new material. The only reverts of work have been the work I've done back to the work that was in place before I began editing the template, which has generally been in place since 2009 and earlier. WP:BRD indicates that proposing new material is an acceptable practice. "The BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) is a proactive method for reaching consensus on any wiki with revision control." I'm certainly not the first to propose these sorts of changes, in fact, looking at the revision history, it generally seems that this same small group of editors pushes out editors who try and improve this template. I'm making good faith efforts and that doesn't preclude others from reverting or proposing other material instead. The nature of this discussion shows they are VERY VERY protective and ownershippy of this template and that isn't in line with Wikipedia policy. I'm doing my best to work within the ever contracting box you guys are drawing, but honestly soon it will be hard to call your efforts good faith. -- Avanu (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
If you're confused about what a revert is, please ask next time. Let me be clear: if the protection expires before you have arranged a consensus on the article's talk page, 'do not continue to make changes. At this point it is very clear that there is significant opposition to your changes. You are free to use any avenue to resolve your dispute (see WP:DR), but continued edit warring is not acceptable. Good luck. Kuru (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
As a result of my actions, DreamFocus finally proposed a small change, which was implemented before you protected the Template. I'd call that progress. As far as significant opposition, I would characterize it more properly as very vocal and strident opposition. I'm incredibly chill about the way this turns out, I'm not emotionally tied up in its outcome, I just don't like it being used as a tool for bias. Since these particular ARS members feel it is OK to disregard the tag's own guidelines and will fight for the tag to be included despite its misuse, I have to work on the template itself. I'm not opposed to improvement, but for some reason the improvement-minded ARS seems to be. Oh, I forgot to mention, I won't edit the Template:Rescue again without your leave. (but I will push for process to be improved) -- Avanu (talk) 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
For the record, I'm taking Avanu's side in this template usage discussion, but I endorse full protection at this time. BusterD (talk) 21:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Note left at Admin Kuru's Talk page regarding Template documentation edit by Avanu. -- Avanu (talk) 10:57, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Darkstar1st reported by User:Will Beback (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Page: Tea Party movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkstar1st (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [45]


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

  • Attempts to resolve dispute on user talk page: [49]
  • Attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]

Comments:
This article is under a 1RR restriction. Darkstar1st has been blocked for violating it once before. I asked him several times to self-revert.   Will Beback  talk  02:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Duration due to previous block for same issue. Kuru (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fleetham reported by User:Odiseo79 (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [51]


User has been warned already three times about edit warring in the article in cuestion Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [64]

Comments:
User deleting sourced content at will. Not willing to reach any consensus and only trying to impose his own version. The user ignores verifiable sources and keeps reverting content and now unilaterally has tagged the article for notability, ignoring again sources provided. The user has been warned three times about the same issue and that didn't work.

--Odiseo79 (talk) 06:20, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User Fleetham has a long history of contentious and disruptive edits, and a marked inability to cooperate with other editors. When thwarted, he will often respond by a steady stream of challenges to those who he considers "hostile". There is a long frustrating discussions here (share taxi), which shows some of Fleetham's usual habits of continued arguing coupled with constant reverts to the article, claiming there is no consensus. At Roewe another losing argument can be seen, followed by a possible vendetta: an attempt to remove a perfectly reliable source used by one of his opponents. Fleetham's targeted articles (all listed on his userpage) are all gutted and broken up into very small fragments, studded with countless references. Tons of useful and often referenced content is deleted without any discussion or respect for other editors, and never ending arguments follow. Most editors give in after a long boring battle, but Fleetham really must be made to adopt community standards of civility and style practices.  ⊂| Mr.choppers |⊃  (talk) 08:42, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked Kuru blocked Fleetham for 48 hours (as this is his/her second 3RR violation) and Odiseo for 24 hours. Minima© (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
This would be a good candidate for protecting the article, but it appears that tactic has been tried back in April on this same article to alleviate an edit war with Fleetham. I've blocked Fleetham for 48 hours for significantly exceeding the 3RR (his second edit warring block), and Odiseo for 24 hours for the same (his first block). Attempting to work out the dispute on the article's talk page is fantastic, but it does not mean you can continue to revert war on the article. Kuru (talk) 11:53, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:117.206.107.58 reported by User:Lerdthenerd (Result: 31h block)[edit]

Page: Chera Dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and many more User being reported: 117.206.107.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [65]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:

massive edit war with Sodabottle and some other users, also reverted the cluebot and this IP is an indef blocked sockpuppet--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Materialscientist Minima© (talk) 11:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:GEAT BEOWULF reported by User:Crashdoom (Result: 24h block)[edit]

Page: Template:Television in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GEAT BEOWULF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ATelevision_in_England&action=historysubmit&diff=428945325&oldid=428740638

  1. 15:46, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428906693 by AxG (talk)")
  2. 16:14, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428939735 by Rangoon11 (talk)")
  3. 16:22, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428943452 by Crashdoom (talk)")
  4. 16:31, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428944791 by Crashdoom (talk)")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User Talk:GEAT BEOWULF

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Template_talk:Television_in_England

Comments:
The user has failed to be willing to discuss this on the talk page and failed to understand a secondary article for the same subject is not required. They have failed to abide by the 3RR policy preventing them from making more than 3 reverts on a single article and for this reason, they are being reported for this violation. This is currently happening on the template and on various other articles edited by the user.

-=- Adam Walker -=- 16:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours by C.Fred -=- Adam Walker -=- 17:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Banzoo reported by User:Owain the 1st (Result: meh)[edit]

There seems to be some dispute on this thread 1996 shelling of Qana .We have both reverted the work of the other, I have only reverted back to the original.The debate seems to be if changing the title of a sub article from Israeli response to Israeli spin is fine. I believe that Israeli response is fine and that changing it to Israeli spin is not a NPOV, obviously the other editor feels different.I would like an admin to come and sort it out please.Owain the 1st (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment Could be considered Edit Warring, but wont fall under the 3RR rule (Only a single revert in 24 hours). Have you considered attempting dispute resolution before reporting the user here? As stated in the template for edit war reporting: "You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too" -=- Adam Walker -=- 19:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Concur with Adam. This is pretty mild, and it appears others are now involved in the discussion on the article's talk page. Kuru (talk) 19:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes it is mild but it was going nowhere, as it happens I did discuss it on the talk page here [72]but cannot come to agreement.Others have since come and reverted the change and commented that his POV was not NPOV.Owain the 1st (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Thigle reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [73]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [79]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [80]

Comments:
User is adding overly-technical writing into the article, without explaining what it means (chulen). His response was that It doesn't matter what chulen is. The point is that it is a secondary condition for rainbow body. If you want more info, reference the source. He just got off of a block for edit warring in the same article yesterday, and the only reason he didn't try to restore his original text in its entirety, I suspect, was because I pointed out that it was a copyright violation.

It also seems that the information he is currently adding is taken directly from here, most notably chulen is a necessary secondary condition for attaining rainbow body. This is not just their teaching however, chulen is mentioned in the sgra thal gyur etc. , which is a word-for-word match to what is being placed in the article. The other sentences in the whole paragraph he inserted are also in that forum posting, some being slightly reworded at the beginning, most not. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


Sigh. These are not all reverts. Way to lie SudoGhost. Hopefully the administrators will catch you. I only have 2 reverts. The rest added material and references. Thigle (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. - SudoGhost (talk) 17:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
What? You are the one who reverted my SOURCED MATERIAL THREE TIMES!! You did not add any material into this page at any time. Thigle (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the additions that Thigle is adding is a copyright violation of this forum, which I am reverting as per WP:COPYVIO and WP:3RR. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

He just did it a fifth time. SudoGhost should be blocked automatically. There is no copyright violation. Refer to the source I referenced. When he ran out of legitimate reverts, he trumped up a copyright violation. This user should be permanently banned. Thigle (talk) 18:24, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Reverting copyright violations is exempt from the WP:3RR rule. Unless you mean to suggest that you happened to add a word-for-word match of a forum, without meaning to, explaining concepts which you yourself don't understand? Adding a source (which you likely haven't checked) does not exempt you from adding copyrighted materal. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There is no copyright violation. You just ran out of legitimate reverts. Thigle (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
For something that isn't a copyright violation, there's a strange similarity between the two. The first forum post mentioning 'chulen' occurs on May 10. Thigle's first edit including 'chulen' occurs on May 11 (which includes verbatim information taken from the forum). Each time the forum adds more information, Thigle's edits become more informational. I don't see how it's anything but a copyright violation. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
CHECK THE SOURCE. JESUS CHRIST. Thigle (talk) 18:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Tacking a book onto the end of a copyright violation does not make it a "source" and does not give you license to violate copyright. Also, you seemingly "forgot" to include your source until (at least) your 7th reinsertion of the material. Seeing as how you've had a problem with not having sources for some time with your edits in this article, I doubt that's a valid source for the material. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Kuru (talk) 19:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I do see the oddity with the forum posts; I'm not sure if it's a copyright violation until it can be looked at in more detail, but the mere question of it should have stopped the re-insertion until that could be cleared up. This seems like a good exception from 3RR. Kuru (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure if its relevant, but this is the second time this oddity has occured, which is why I looked into it. The first here this, in which this diff is even more verbatim from this than the one above. It also has the same timeline, with the forum post first, and the first diff showing up a couple of days later. The copyright notice at the bottom of the forum, and the lack of attribution was the concern for me. - SudoGhost (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Nuthos reported by User:Freshacconci (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: List of Canadians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nuthos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [81]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [86]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [87]

Comments: I've attempted to discuss this on the talk page but this editor is not inclined to discuss it.

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Fixed template error. Page protection request has been submitted here on the same issue. -=- Adam Walker -=- 22:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected I note that both editors are guilty of warring. I considered blocking both but determined that page protection combined with reverting the most recent edit appearing to be a BLP concern may start them discussing things. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Indépendance des Chercheurs reported by User:Drmies (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Luis González-Mestres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Indépendance des Chercheurs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [88], and after the fifth revert, [89]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95] (by another editor)

I've presented arguments for the tags on the talk page--see lengthy discussion, particularly for the COI tag. I've also indicated the problems with sourcing in the edit summaries of a number of edits to sections of the article--but those few edits only scratch the surface.

There is currently an ANI thread as well, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edit_war_brewing.2Ffringe_science.2Fownership.2Fetc._on_Luis_Gonz.C3.A1lez-Mestres_.28and_Superbradyon.29, where I called for attention early on in the process and also touched upon ownership and COI issues. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Superbradyon (2nd nomination) (I was first drawn to the issue by this edit).

Comments:

Drmies (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: 48 hours for 3RR violation. The fierce advocacy on behalf of the article subject suggests the possibility of a COI. EdJohnston (talk) 04:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:98.192.72.29 reported by User:Jasper Deng (Result: Rescinded)[edit]

Page: Alpharetta High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.192.72.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [96]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [101]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [102]

Comments:
The IP has been edit warring after my 3RR warning on this article. I'm not involved myself in the edit warring. But what's more, the IP has told another user that he may not edit the page if he's not affiliated with the subject ([103]), a clear opposite of WP:COI. Even though these reverts are over a 2-week period, this IP clearly doesn't get the concept of edit warring and didn't use edit summaries.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:02, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Temporarily striking this report. Will unstrike and add diffs if the warring continues.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:15, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Marking report as Rescinded by reporter -=- Adam Walker -=- 11:45, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:99.90.197.244 reported by User:Orangemarlin (Result: 72 hours )[edit]

Page: Human evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.90.197.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [104]


  1. 09:13, 4 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 427373357 by HiLo48 (talk)")
  2. 22:30, 9 May 2011 (edit summary: "as higlated by Moxy & using 'his' source, see talk")
  3. 22:36, 9 May 2011 (edit summary: "spelling")
  4. 10:58, 10 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
  5. 11:07, 10 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Denisova hominin */ early migration out of Africa, rm misleding link to' recent out of Africa'")
  6. 11:18, 10 May 2011 (edit summary: "/* Denisova hominin */ {fact} but not realy fact but nonsesne:: Nenderthal if migrated then migrated into Africa (was cold ice age) not out of Africa.")
  7. 09:12, 11 May 2011 (edit summary: ""hypothesis of total replacement can be tested, and it is strongly rejected (P < 10^-17)"")
  8. 10:40, 11 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
  9. 10:41, 11 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
  10. 10:53, 11 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
  11. 12:23, 12 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
  12. 11:18, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "added: around 100,000 years ago as quopted")
  13. 11:25, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "")
  14. 11:45, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "there was obscured wikilink (fixed), removing one misquoted source")
  15. 11:56, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Moving left source with words " dominant view" after the words dominanat view. The source, highly here protected (see talk), is a kind of website for kids with ?title? (sic) " SITEMAP for ORIGINS Theology of Creation,"")
  16. 22:31, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "old Citation removed (by previous editor, right it was not WP:RS ) - curent {citation neded}. Adding qoute and date to the last one open, remaining 2001 source.")
  17. 23:31, 13 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 428999251 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)")
  18. 03:50, 14 May 2011 (edit summary: "plese discuss changes in talk.")
  19. 05:27, 14 May 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 429032168 by Leadwind (talk) this was silly you expect scientis to put wikilinks in they articles ?")

OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


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

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

Comments:

This individual has been blocked before on the same article. And we've tried to discuss, but the IP just says the same incomprehensible stuff (seriously, several editors are confused by the comments). OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 06:56, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment I noticed you haven't put a link to a discussion, but I would see why you couldn't with an IP user. Anyway, they have been blocked twice previously for disruptive editing, first for 1 month, second for 3 months, and they still appear to not have learned from this action. An extended/indefinite block may be the best option, at least until the editor understands how to interact and edit alongside other Wikipedia editors. -=- Adam Walker -=- 11:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
    Thought about it. But they keep adding the same thing over and over and over again. I think a couple of weeks ago they were at 10RR. I don't get why admins don't deal with editors like this. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 18:49, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Since this is the first 'edit warring' block, albeit a pretty egregious one, I've just set it at 72 hours. I have not reviewed the content of the edits - if there's something disruptive there like his previous blocks, point it out and I'll escalate from the last 3 month block. Kuru (talk) 21:14, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:John Foxe reported by User:FyzixFighter (Result: semi)[edit]

Page: Joseph Smith, Jr. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: John Foxe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [106]

  • 1st revert: [107] 07:30, 13 May 2011
  • 2nd revert: [108] 11:34, 13 May 2011
  • 3rd revert: [109] 12:34, 13 May 2011
  • 4th revert: [110] 05:25, 14 May 201


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111] for the same behavior just prior to article being locked ~2 weeks ago

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Fanny_Alger_2, Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#Fanny_Alger and Talk:Joseph_Smith,_Jr.#.22Nature_of_reliable_sources.22

Comments:

John Foxe is well aware of WP:3RR - in fact, this same behavior a little more than two weeks ago contributed to the article being locked. See also a previous report at that time. I find it telling that despite that previous warning and locking of the page, John Foxe returns to the same behavior. As I commented before, his comments on the talk page indicate a edit warring mindset, issues of WP:OWNership, and editting with an agenda to push and only allow his particular POV. His comments on the talk page now including [112]), stating that he would continue inserting the same material that led to the edit war and locking of the page after the page was unlocked (which he did) rather than trying to gain a consensus. Per the advice given at the previous report, since the pattern has repeated after the protection expired, I am reporting again. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note User has previously been blocked twice for violations of the 3RR policy, and this is their second time causing a violation of the policy on the same page after page protection. Has the user been warned regarding the latest 3RR policy violation? -=- Adam Walker -=- 14:30, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected Semi-protected for one month. This looks like an extension of the events leading up to the recently expired semi-protection, and should otherwise be amenable to talkpage discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:04, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:190.98.48.73 reported by User:Aspects (Result: 24h block)[edit]

Page: American Idol (season 10) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Lauren Alaina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.98.48.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


American Idol (season 10) Previous version reverted to: [113]

Lauren Alain Previous version reverted to: [114]

American Idol (season 10)

Lauren Alaina


American Idol (season 10) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:190.98.48.73#3rr warning on American Idol (season 10)]

Laurena Alaina Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [User talk:190.98.48.73#3rr warning on Lauren Alaina]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:American Idol (season 10)#Someone keeps removing Lauren's bottom 2 status from the elimination table

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User talk:190.98.48.73#Lauren Alaina Bottom 2 placement in the final five round

Comments: This new IP user only has edits over the past four days and all of them were to switch the Bottom 2 placement on a results show of American Idol (season 10) to Safe, even though Ryan Seacrest on the show specifically said Lauren Alaina and Jacob Lusk were in the Bottom 2 and then eliminated Lusk. There was a discussion started on the talk page of American Idol (season 10) that had three different editors respond that the IP address was incorrect. Numerous different editor have reverted the changes on both articles, but the IP address has yet to respond to any of the concerns brought up. Aspects (talk) 16:55, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


In addition to the reports above, the user in question is also vandalizing Scotty McCreery here. A block here would be helpful in at least slowing down the vandalism here, --RadioFan (talk) 20:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Bjmullan reported by User:WizOfOz (Result: protected)[edit]

Page: 2011 UK Open Darts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bjmullan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [127]

  • See also complete edit history to date: [132]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [133] Response [134]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [135]

Comments:

There has been no 3RR specific violation, but this is a long-term reverting war where consensus for the user's proposed change has not been reached. WizOfOz (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

The diffs cited as the first and second reverts are, at the time of writing, identical; you might want to clarify that. Skomorokh 18:00, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Fixed it now and added further detail. WizOfOz (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. A barely plausible claim of WP:BLP has been made, the talkpage and WikiProject discussions are inconclusive, and several parties are edit warring here. I recommend a request for comment if those discussions do not reach a resolution in the next week. Bjmullan, please be careful that you do not "cry BLP", as it can have a chilling effect on discussion, antagonize editing relationships, and give others the impression that you may be more interested in "winning" than in writing the best possible free content encyclopedia. Please be more circumspect in wielding the policy. To everyone: please remember that there is no deadline; waiting to establish a reasoned consensus is often more important than ensuring that your preferred version of the article is displayed at all times. - 2/0 (cont.) 00:53, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Alba Illyrian (Result: reporter blocked as sock)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [136]

  • 1st revert: [137] (at 02:35).
  • 2nd revert: [138] (at 02:50).
  • 3rd revert: [139] (at 03:09).

Diff of 3RR warning: [140] (warned at 02:56).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [141] (replied at 03:08 to a comment made at 03:01).

Comments:
User has reverted an edit I made three times, despite having been warned and engaged on the talk page. He has accused me of making three reverts, but I have made only two ([142] partial revert at 02:47) ([143] revert at 02:52). Medeis (talk · contribs) was blocked for edit-warring two weeks ago. Alba Illyrian (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note Reporting user has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, as per the report, it appears to have been resolved now on the article's talk page. There was no presence of 3RR violation, there was only 3 edits and 4 are required for violation of the 3RR policy. -=- Adam Walker -=- 20:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined Reporting editor has been blocked for sock puppetry. No further action appears necessary at this time. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:GEAT BEOWULF reported by User:Jevansen (Result: 72 h)[edit]

Page: Template:Television in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GEAT BEOWULF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Recently blocked for edit warring, reverts article again immediately after expiry of ban. Jevansen (talk) 11:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note User is persistantly re-creating pages that are otherwise un-needed and have an editorial consensus on the matter. See BBC Two England and the talk regarding the page at Talk:BBC Two England. User does not appear to understand the 3RR policy or general editing guidelines of Wikipedia relating to discussion of major additions/removals of content, especially in cases of content dispute. -=- Adam Walker -=- 11:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Immediately returned to edit warring on the same article as the other day. Also edit warring on similar pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:37, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:66.130.33.84 reported by CapnPrep (talk) (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: History of French (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 66.130.33.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:16, 14 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
  2. 22:55, 14 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "wrongly reverted, will stop this please")
  3. 13:15, 15 May 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 429164451 by CapnPrep (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

Comments:

No 3rr violation as yet, but this is a well-known anonymous editor, previously reported (January 2011, February 2011) and currently blocked from several addresses for edit-warring: 70.82.96.170, 76.65.240.91,… See also this sockpuppet report from 2010 involving still other IP addresses. Operating since May 13 under this new address. Same unmotivated, irrelevant fringe content, same unwillingness to discuss or defend edits.

CapnPrep (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected three months. An IP who must be the same editor was blocked here for three months. The collection of IPs who are reverting this article do not participate on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

User:Fatty2k10 reported by User:Jasmeet 181 (Result: 24 h)[edit]

Page: Beaumont Shopping Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fatty2k10 (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: