Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive183

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

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

Page: Oliver Cowdery (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: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2]
  • 2nd revert: [3]

Comments:

John Foxe was placed on a 1RR restriction (see here and here) on Mormon-related articles for 2 years. This is not the first time he has violated this restriction (see here). Additionally, a review of his actions over the past few months reveals a few additional instances where he has overstepped 1RR on Mormon-related pages, for example [4] & [5] and [6] & [7], along with other instances where two reverts are outside the 24hr window by only a few hours. --FyzixFighter (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:94.250.89.58 reported by RA0808 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Balika Vadhu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 94.250.89.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:15, 10 April 2012 (edit summary: "No, now! You have to wait for this, because the show is still in progress.")
  2. 16:47, 10 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 486650028 by 182.64.21.232 (talk)")
  3. 16:48, 10 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Cast */")
  4. 18:56, 10 April 2012 (edit summary: "Fuck off, rude, fat boy...")
  5. 19:12, 10 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 486675047 by Aaron Booth (talk)")
  6. 19:19, 10 April 2012 (edit summary: "Every day I will repay such a change, if it do not mind other people on Wikipedia, why you? And the article is not that long, there are also longer. The people read this every moment.")
  7. 19:21, 10 April 2012 (edit summary: "Every day I will repay such a change, if it do not mind other people on Wikipedia, why you? And the article is not that long, there are also longer. The people read this every moment.")
  8. 19:23, 10 April 2012 (edit summary: "Hey, don't change.")
  • Diff of warning: here

RA0808 talkcontribs 19:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Page full-protected)[edit]

Page: 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Somedifferentstuff (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: []


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [12][13]

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

Comments:
Editor has removed sourced content without once offering an explanation and after being urged to do so.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that AnkhMorpork has made 3 reverts in a 24 hour period and has zero attempts to resolve the dispute on the article's talk page.
This is his first revert. There is no discussion.
I make an attempt to discuss this matter on the talk page and revert his edits. I even leave a message on his talk page. He never responds.
But he reverts part of the same material again. Again, no comment on the talk page.
AnkhMorpork and Somedifferentstuff go through various edits, neither attempts to use the talk page.
AnkhMorpork makes a third revert here, again without any discussion.
Later Somedifferentstuff attempted to discuss the dispute.
AnkhMorpork has previously violated 3RR on this article. I even reported him, but withdrew my report after he self-reverted.VR talk 03:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
The Talk page "attempt to discuss" was made after two warnings regarding disruptive editing and after this report being submitted and it is disingenuous to suggest otherwise. As to the most recent third diff that you provided, in it, I changed the text from its original form to accommodate with your desires raised on the Talk page and am surprised you are citing this as edit-warring. I did not respond because I had noted your concerns and had duly amended the text! I am uncertain what reasoning and debating you expect me to provide for edits which are reliably sourced and have been inexplicably deleted; something I refrain from doing.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 09:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
"I did not respond because I had noted your concerns and had duly amended the text!" Not true. This revert restores some of the material that I protested earlier at the talk page.
"I am uncertain what reasoning and debating you expect me to provide for edits which are reliably sourced and have been inexplicably deleted" I explained my deletion on the talk page! See the diff above. How then can you call the deletion "inexplicably"? And you are required to use the talk page.
And when filing the 3rr report, you must have seen the following : "If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too".VR talk 12:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you re-examine the latest of my cited edits as opposed to quoting from earlier ones. I amended in accordance with your wishes and restored content that was inexplicably deleted from not just the lead but from other paragraphs too, which still has not been explained.
Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 12:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest you withdraw this report. It is meant to report a single user going against multiple users who have discussed adequately on the talk page. This is definitely not the case here.VR talk 12:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
... and I suggest you not suggest that someone withdraw their filing due to your own misunderstandings of the purpose of this board :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I should block at least 3 of you; instead I have fully-protected the page, and it's unfortunate if I have perhaps protected the wrong version. Every single one of you will discuss edits and obtain consensus. Every single one of you will read about edit-warring. Every single one of you will follow proper dispute resolution processess. There will be no further warnings for edit-warring for any of the 3 of you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:91.150.222.61 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Blue Army (Poland) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.150.222.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Blue Army (Poland)#Someone is re-adding text that was collectively agreed upon as inaccurate.

Comments:

  • Result: Article semiprotected one month. Carrying on an editing dispute with multiple IPs violates WP:SOCK right there. EdJohnston (talk) 20:56, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Vithurgod (Result: Declined - filer warned )[edit]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|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]


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

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

Comments:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ranina_Reddy

Discography is a Table containing the List of Songs sung by an Indian Singer and this has been existing for all Indian Play Back singers. It was existing for singer Ranina Reddy whose wikipage is being edited by me for adding more data into it but there has been a conflict and other editors are not allowing it. Please consider this. It was existing before and it exists for other singers as well. Why did it get deleted, for this singer and why shouldnt this exist for this singer ?. Please resolve this and give permission for adding the same. Thanks Vithurgod (talk) 14:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined I was going to mark this as malformed, but I believe this required comment. You are involved in a content dispute, and have been blocked once already because of it - you then returned to the same behaviour. Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS, full stop. edit-warring is never permitted. If consensus on the talkpage is to NOT include something, this it shall not be included. You cannot force it. Further re-adding to the article, or reverting the removal will lead to additional blocks (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:109.89.5.80 (Result: Declined as malformed)[edit]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|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]


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

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

Comments:


  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Indeed, I cannot even find any edits by you on the English Wikipedia to trace this (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

[[User:]] reported by User:Nobullgracias (Result: Filer blocked)[edit]

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: [[User:|]] ([[User talk:|talk]] · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)Malik Shabazz, Roland R

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marek_Edelman&diff=486858864&oldid=486857289

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


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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Marek_Edelman



Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Comments:

I have included a general history of the edit warring (above). Two editors (Malik Shabazz and Roland R) - while technically not violating the 3 revert rule are engaging in edit warring I believe. In the last edit made by Malik Shabazz - I instead was accused of edit warring. I have asked for a genuine discussion/compromise on this - but so far to no avail Nobullgracias (talk) 19:36, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Though the request is malformed, I handled this request anyways. I can see from the edit history of the article that not only was the article protected due to edit warring, but 184.2.174.194 (talk · contribs) was also blocked for 1 day. It's quite obvious that this is not the first time you've been blocked for edit warring in this article and as such, I have blocked you for 2 days for repeated edit warring. Elockid (Talk) 20:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

User:60.53.112.200 reported by User:DmitryKo (Result: 24h)[edit]

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

Page: Direct2D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [21]

  • 11 April [24]
  • 11 April [25] Edit summary: Your opinion is irrelevant. You and your father don't own Wikipedia
  • 11 April [26] Edit summary: Revert vandalism by DmitryKo, mods please ban this vandal
  • 12 April [27] Edit summary: Typical Russian Retard, just 1 click and I undo your vandalism
  • 12 April [28]

Page: DirectWrite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to: [29]

  • 11 April [32]
  • 11 April [33] Edit summary: Your opinion is irrelevant. You and your father don't own Wikipedia
  • 11 April [34] Edit summary: Revert vandalism by DmitryKo, mods please ban this vandal
  • 12 April [35] Edit summary: Typical Russian Retard, just 1 click and I undo your vandalism
  • 12 April [36]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [37]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [38] [39]

Comments:
IP adresses above have also been involved with edit warring and name calling on Firefox ‎and Nvidia PureVideo.‎ --Dmitry (talkcontibs) 07:30, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Keep in mind, however, that you are also subject to the the three-revert rule, so even when it comes to personal attacks, be sure to avoid accidentally violating it. --slakrtalk / 00:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Meadyforzbs reported by User: 76.107.249.211 (Result: both blocked for 24 hours)[edit]

Page: The Angry Beavers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Meadyforzbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [40]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [45]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [46]

Comments:
User:Meadyforzbs Has been repeatedly Reverting the airdates from 2001 to 2006 of the Angry Beavers without providing reliable sources. I have told him to take it to the talk page yet he is still trying to engage in edit warring Which he has already been warned for by User:Danger less than a week ago.Please can someone help me

  • Comment, he is actually up to eight reverts. 76.107.249.211 has not fared much better. Darkness Shines (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Another comment, Meadyforzbs is doing the exact same edit warring here[47] Darkness Shines (talk) 00:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • And here[48] Darkness Shines (talk) 00:12, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 00:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:64.229.47.78 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 48 hours )[edit]

Page: Progressive revelation (Bahá'í) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 64.229.47.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 00:49, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  2. 01:05, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  3. 01:09, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  4. 01:11, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  5. 01:13, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  6. 01:17, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  7. 01:40, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  8. 02:19, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  9. 02:27, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  10. 02:36, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  11. 02:42, 13 April 2012 (edit summary: "")
  • Diff of warning: here

Tgeairn (talk) 02:58, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:JCAla reported by User:TopGun (Result: 30-day restriction)[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)


(Pre-violation revert):

Addition by JCAla: [49]

Reverted and followed by discussion where JCAla's version didn't make consensus as of yet: [50]

1RR violation

Previous version reverted to: [51]


1RR sanction: [54]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Pakistan/Archive 15#Balochistan (detailed discussion)

Comments: JCAla has been baiting my community sanction repeatedly on different articles for which he was given the same sanction when reverting me. He has violated this at two different instances. The first case, at Balochistan conflict was considered stale by Salvio (though it was only 12 hours late when he responded and the dispute was still on). [55] [56]. After that, he has done the same on Pakistan by reverting me again after I BRD reverted his edit in which he reinstated (a modified version) of his content addition which was removed before the the talk page discussion started a few days ago. Normal escalation should be followed now so that future editwar is prevented. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


Wow, just wow. TopGun is following around my edits, reverting here and there and then coming here bothering people with absolutely nothing. I seriously start to consider this harassment. He is following me, not the other way around. I did but one revert. (Note that I am not under 1RR, but people have agreed that when editors are involved in a dispute with editors which are under 1RR such as TopGun, the editors not under 1RR should try to adhere to that basis as well.)

  1. (14 March-16 March) There was a discussion on how to add a sentence about the Balochistan conflict to the Pakistan article.15#Balochistan
  2. (07:39, 8 April) I added the proposed sentence as there had been no further objections for weeks on the talk. This is an edit, not a revert![57]
  3. (13:49, 8 April) TopGun changed a term for the conflict inside the sentence.[58]
  4. (14:12, 8 April) I reverted TopGun's change based on two arguments: a) the source (The Economist) used the term I had used and b) TopGun's change of term made the sentence grammatically incorrect. As far as I am aware there is a conflict between two actors not an insurgency between two actors. An insurgency is conducted by someone not between people. This is one revert.[59] (Note: The "opposed to" went in there by accident, I fixed it in the next minor edit.)

It is interesting that the version according to TopGun supposedly "reverted to", actually succeeded (not preceded my edit). Note also, an editor often on the other spectrum of content discussions, who was involved in the Balochistan discussion, has agreed that the sentence added by me "serves well enough".[60] Furthermore, I was not notified by TopGun of this report.

Additionally, TopGun is absolutely mispresenting what Salvio has said about another discussion regarding the Balochistan conflict main article (note: above was about a sentence about Balochistan in the Pakistan article). On that article TG reverted a major overhaul of the article conducted by me, including proper sourcing, restructuring, grammar improvements, removing unsourced content[61] - and he cited no reason but a discontent with one sentence and a general, not elaborated "POV" claim.[62] I told him he could have changed that sentence or discussed it without making a general revert to everything including uncontroversial improvements.[63] In his revert TG restored content such as this one: Balochistan_conflict#Development_and_Human_Rights_Issues. I had sourced everything appropriately. Also, he restored 3 separate sections on the economic issue, which I had intergrated into one. He also restored that the Pakistan and Iran conflict are mixed up in the article, although they are not directly related to one another. I had made two parts of the article, one for Iran and one for Pakistan. Furthermore, I had updated a lot of the information to April 2012 as The Economist has written a major article on the issue. Until this day TG has failed to cite any reliable source for that one sentence he reverted everything for, while his revert removed the Stanford University Press as a source I had used. Salvio said: "JCala did not violate his 1-rr – he made a bold edit, was reverted and he himself reverted only once ..." Then he said, that even if it was construed as a revert, the issue had become stale anyways.[64] Later he again explained to TG, "I find it hard to construe JCala's first edit as a revert, when he was actually changing the article's content."[65]

As shown by this report, TopGun is looking for trouble and that is starting to become truly annoying. JCAla (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but just because a single user thought that the debate was not necessary over that term doesn't mean that you had consensus. And following your edits really? I've been working on Pakistan (especially the FAC) and Balochistan conflict both before you as far as I remember... so stop making that excuse. I find it quite telling that you come up with excuses as such when you violate restrictions. And you definitely are under a 1RR when in dispute with me and that is clearly mentioned in the diff cited by me. My own community sanction was extended to full on exact same basis, ie. being in a similar dispute. And no, my revert to Balochistan conflict was not a general revert... I objected to your edits and ever since instead of adding a single comment on talk page to further discuss, you have been claiming it as a general revert. Luckily unlike that, in the current case you have clearly reverted me twice. I have taken Salvio's explanation in consideration here and you have violated 1RR inspite of that. I will not discuss any content here, but this has been filled with WP:SOUP just even with this. I disagree that a first edit is not included in the reverts, all reports above contain it in my opinion... and even if you don't consider that, this was a revert of content removed by me a few days ago. To add, almost all of JCAla's edits since atleast last week have been baiting my 1RR (or discussing it) by first adding content and the reverting me again while I followed 1RR. This was atleast the third article and second after he was put on 1RR for the same reason. I'll wait for admin comments. --lTopGunl (talk) 11:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

There was no objection to what I had last written on the talk of the Pakistan article since 16 March, the discussion was actually saved by me out of the archives where it had already gone.[66] Also, I was not put under "1RR sanction". Do you understand? This restriction, not sanction, is valid for every editor involved in a dispute with you or another editor under 1RR in this topic area. Salvio stated: "Same goes for all other editors involved."[67] I propose you stop mispresenting what Salvio said. And yes, you undid everything in general revert on the Balochistan conflict article merely an hour after my overhaul.[68] I discussed and asked you here to provide a source and reason for removing the Stanford University Press. Until this day you failed to do any of that. This is not a constructive way to work with each other.JCAla (talk) 11:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Quoting diff cited for sanction, yes I know I shouldn't be giving this because I added diff, but above is a case of blatant cherry picking: "JCala, please remember that when your undoing TopGun's edits or involved in a content dispute with him, you're under a WP:1RR too. Same goes for all other editors involved." This was in reply to my report for his baiting. --lTopGunl (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, exactly as I said. It is not a sanction against me because of behavior (as you falsely claimed) but a general restriction for "all other editors involved" in this topic area also. Salvio said the exact same thing to Mar4d or Altentendekrabbe, directly addressing them, too.[69] Salvio did so rightly for the topic area because of the fierce content disputes. JCAla (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)


  • To make this whole mess short. TopGun claims in his report above this is the version I allegedly twice reverted to. How can I in my first edit, on 8 April 07:39,[70] (termed the "1st revert" by TopGun) "revert" to a version of 8 April 12:50? I have done but one revert (see timeline explained above) and that among using the term used by the source restored a grammatically correct version. JCAla (talk) 12:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
JCAla, it does appear that you added this material on 3/14, which was then removed by TopGun. Your edit at 07:39 is indeed reverting his earlier removal. Had this been a completely novel addition, then there would not be an issue. Your edit at 14:12 is, as you note, a revert which then violates the 1RR restriction. I'm pretty hesitant to block to "prevent" something from two days ago, though. Does this make sense and will you be more careful to avoid 1RR going forward? Kuru (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Kuru, given the drama above (and the previous two such instances which were considered stale after late admin response on the report), I suspect that this might happen again. That is what should be prevented by blocking/warning now. If the message is delivered without a block, good enough... but I don't think JCAla is even agreeing to it. Also, there's a thread at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring‎, please comment on that to clarify about novel edits for future reference as that also seems to be against the BRD concept and effectively turns a 1RR restriction into 0RR. --lTopGunl (talk) 08:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
  • On March 14 I added the following sentence:
"Since 1948, when the Pakistani army annexed Balochistan as its fourth province, until today a Baloch separatist movement is fighting a struggle for self-determination."[71]
(you might notice no such term as "conflict" in there)
  • TopGun (surprise, surprise) removed the whole sentence.
  • From March 14 to March 16 I discussed with several editors what sentence to add instead. After I had made my last proposal and statement on March 16, there were no further objections. The discussion even went into the archives.
  • As there were no further objections I then added on April 8 (!) a totally different sentence (discussed on the talk):
"Since 1948, there has also been an ongoing, and at times fluctuating, violent conflict in the southwestern province of Balochistan between various Baloch seperatist groups who seek greater political autonomy, and the central government of Pakistan."[72]
  • TopGun (surprise, surprise) messed up the sentence grammatically.
  • I conducted one revert (changing one single term) to restore the correct version. An editor who was part of the discussion even voiced his approval of the sentence.

This is by no means a violation of 1RR. A) We are speaking of a time span of one month! B) The sentence added by me on March 14 was a totally different one and did not even feature the term "conflict" (the term to be reverted by TopGun on April 8 in a different sentence). C) The sentence added on April 8 after an extensive discussion was completely different from the one added on March 14. D) The one revert I did conduct (after TopGun's April 8 revert) changed ONE term. I value your kind response and restraint, Kuru, and I certainly am already very aware that TopGun's restriction has implication for everyone in a dispute with him on that topic area and I try to abide by that. But I am not going to take this joke. I find it telling how desperately he is seeking to have me blocked and he is doing so very openly, people seem to think that is completely ok, well ... He is already twisting what you said, by implying a first edit adding totally different/new content counts as one revert. Maybe you can clarify that. Other than that, thank you again for your kind response, I am aware of what you said. JCAla (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Kuru found this to be a 1RR violation and offered to forgive it. He asked JCAla 'will you be more careful to avoid 1RR going forward.' If JCAla had said yes, I would support closing this report with no action. Since JCAla has come back with legalisms about the revert, I recommend doing a block instead. JCAla, if you really want admins to examine every single revert (going back a month) as though they were accountants, instead of you taking the advice to ease off a bit, have it your way. Kuru by dint of analysis (that must have been tedious) found it was really two reverts by you. I agree with his diagnosis. EdJohnston (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
As I said, I am going to follow Kuru's advice. But, yes, if you want to block me, you should indeed investigate if there is truly a case. The sentences are different, and I discussed the new sentence and waited for any further objections for nearly a month before adding it. The term disputed on April 8, was not in the March 14 version. So, pardon me, but that is not a 1RR violation and I am sure Kuru will check out my argument if he/she comes here. JCAla (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
How about you agree, for the next 30 days, to make no change at Pakistan that could be controversial unless you first propose it on the talk page and at least one other person supports it there. EdJohnston (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Inquiry: Will you then investigate my argument above? I would be willing to do it voluntarily for the time span as a good faith gesture. But I am not willing to have it construed as a "because of 1RR violation", when it wasn't one. What kind of message would that be? A adds a sentence on March 14, B removes it. A then discusses on the talk page with B, C and D. A completely new sentence is being worked out. After A's last argument on the talk, no further objections come and D even voices support for the new version. On April 8, A then adds the new sentence. One term is changed in the sentence by B, which had not been in the March 14 version. A does one revert, among other things because it messes up the grammar, but nothing has been restored which was in the March 14 version. B reports A for edit warring claiming 2 reverts. Tell me, where are the 2 reverts? JCAla (talk) 20:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
No further discussion of the reverts. We do not owe you thousands of words of discussion of every complaint about you. Please say yes or no whether you accept the one-month restriction at Pakistan, as proposed. EdJohnston (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Every complaint about me? How many are there which are unrelated to TopGun? None. I am asking you for one solid explanation, nothing more, nothing less. That is a reasonable expectation. Kuru wrote, "it does appear that you added this material on 3/14, which was then removed by TopGun. ... Had this been a completely novel addition, then there would not be an issue." I explained that this is a misunderstanding as I did not add the same material as on 3/14 and I provided evidence that this was indeed a novel addition on April 8. Now I want to see what Kuru has to say. I am therefore asking you to wait for Kuru's opinion on this matter as he or she was the administrator who took on this matter and I addressed my argument to him/her. JCAla (talk) 20:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow response; I am not usually available during the day (central US). I spent about 30 minutes last night digging through a long series of content disputes to ensure the material was not previously present in the article. The additions looked roughly the same to me, but given the clarification on what the key distinctions were (the points of contention in that sentence), I understand your position. Not a novel addition but distinct through compromise. The problem we're faced with is that the same names continue to show up here with convoluted and acrimonious disputes, filled with terse communication between editors that simply do not like each other and have moved well past the assume good faith mantra. I think Ed's solution may help mitigate some of the trust issues and lighten the case load a little, and I'm comfortable with the arrangement not being "under a cloud". Kuru (talk) 00:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)FYI, I am administrator who used to work in this dispute, but I was hounded away by the constant obtuseness of JCAla in cases exactly like this one (TopGun didn't help his case by being way too wordy for me to follow what they were going through). Let me just say something: this is entirely typical of JCAla. Try to cover up the entire instance with WP:SOUP, and then when an administrator admonishes him, he says the admin should stay out of the discussion because said admin is no longer capable of rendering a neutral decision. As far as I'm concerned, JCAla should either be blocked for a lengthy amount of time (for continuing to wikilawyer by means of filibuster and ignoring what countless people in the community have been telling him about his behavior - this is far from the first time this has happened) or receive a one year topic ban from all issues regarding Pakistan. He and TopGun should also have a interaction ban with each other. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear Kuru, thanks again for looking through it. I am truly thankful that you did that! I understand everything you have said and agree with it. So, you do now agree that it was not really a violation? In that case, I am willing to do what was proposed by Ed for the Pakistan article as a good faith gesture as you again had to deal with "the same names" (although I don't remember when I last went here bothering anyone). I have had no real problem with any editor on wikipedia but blocked sock puppet master User:Lagoo sab and TopGun in combination with Magog (as can be seen above). In this case I discussed everything and then introduced a new sentence as discussed on the talk. I am sorry that TopGun brought this here again, and that Magog (with whom I had such disagreement that I had to go seek arbitration) feels the need to use this wrong report again to denounce anything related to me. For the last time, you are so much over the top, I can't even tell you, Magog. One year for 1 revert which isn't even a violation? I am just lucky that there are administrators here like Kuru, Salvio or even Ed which are willing to listen to what people are actually saying. JCAla (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I made a single revert (strictly adhering to 1RR) and reported a vio... with just that, this has turned into a drama which is now dragging me into WP:BATTLE accusations and bringing up bans, fulfilling the purpose of WP:SOUP like Magog (and others) pointed out. A discussion was going on at the talk page and JCAla's version(s) didn't fully get a consensus, waiting it out and adding it later was a reasonable cause for me to invoke BRD at that point, yet a second revert was made. The only aim I've left here is that such reverts are not made in future. In good will to the notice board, I'll step out of this debate now and let the admins prevent that. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I think it is clear who brought the drama here talking of "baiting" and advising admins here that "normal escalation should be followed now", etc. I am sorry for this issue bothering so many people again, but if someone brings forward such a report about anyone, I guess, the person will have to respond as I did. Again, one thing I'd like to point out:

  • March 14-16, discussion about how to formulate the sentence.
  • Me March 16: "I think we should leave it to the one sentence [last proposed by me] ..."
  • March 16-April 8, no further objection, discussion goes into the archives. I add "the one sentence" on April 8.
  • Not any other objection on the talk since I added it. TG changed one term (not present in any previously inserted sentence) inside the sentence, which I reverted once for above mentioned reasons (1. sources mainly call it conflict, even the wikipedia article is called "Balochistan conflict" and 2. the sentence would have been grammatically wrong, there is no insurgency between people, either there is an insurgency by people or a conflict between people). The revert was reasonably explained and one revert constitutes no violation.
  • Only reaction on talk page was by User:Huon April 8: "JCAla's version is not quite what I'd have written, but it serves well enough."

As I understood you Kuru, you said, you now understand my position and also that your are "comfortable with the arrangement not being 'under a cloud'", which means to me it is not for any kind of violation, which wasn't there, but to "mitigate some of the trust issues" and ease the tension. So, although it was TG to bring this here again without there being any violation, under above mentioned circumstance I am willing to agree to Ed's suggestion as a good faith effort because you had to deal with this complicated topic area and lengthy discussion again - as did I. JCAla (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Result: Closed by agreement, with voluntary restriction. JCAla has accepted my offer "How about you agree, for the next 30 days, to make no change at Pakistan that could be controversial unless you first propose it on the talk page and at least one other person supports it there." JCAla, if you have any more discussion on this, please take it to my talk page. If I have misread the discussion and it turns out you are not accepting this, see the above comment by Magog on other options to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:Nmate (Result: )[edit]

Page: Moravians (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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


Previous version reverted to: [73]

  1. 15:15, 11 April 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Doncsecz (talk): Please use talk page of the article. (TW)")
  2. 23:16, 11 April 2012 (edit summary: "both references and opinions, for neutrality")
  3. 09:08, 12 April 2012 (edit summary: "please, add source how many Moravians are speaking different language than Czech and read WP:UNDUE")
  4. 09:24, 12 April 2012 (edit summary: "dubious")
  5. 09:27, 12 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 486975202 by Doncsecz (talk)")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [75]

Comments:
The user is quite familiar with the 3RR rule, and has recently warned his opponent about edit-warring [76]. It may be that the 4th and 5th above linked diffs constitute only one revert, but even if that is the case, Yopie still appears to be in violation of 3RR.--Nmate (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


User:213.246.90.36 reported by User:Yunshui (Result: )[edit]

Page: Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.246.90.36 (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: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82] &sub, see also discussion at User talk:Yunshui#Woodleigh School.

Comments:


Afraid I agree with the ip. The ip has simply restored referenced material which has been deleted by reporting editor and one other for no good reason. No consensus had been achieved prior to established material being removed. I cannot see any evidence of edit warring, by the IP at least...isfutile:P (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


User:90.229.231.14 reported by User:Ravensfire (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Tribes: Ascend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.229.231.14 (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: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments:
Recently released game, user is trying to add a link to the sign-up page with their referral code. Semi-protection has been requested, but this is by far the most determined of the users trying to get their referral code on WP. Ravensfire (talk) 13:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the semi on the article! Ravensfire (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick reported by User:NULL (Result:blocked 2 weeks )[edit]

Page: Talk:Demographics of Greater China (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Comments:
This has been an ongoing issue with this editor. The problem edit is the repeated addition of {{unsigned}} tags to sockpuppet/blocked editor tags placed by SchmuckyTheCat against the edits of a blocked sockpuppet in the discussion. Jeffrey was told repeatedly that the unsigned tags weren't necessary but persisted in restoring them. He then attempted to WP:GAME the system by adding small token edits such as adding or removing a space elsewhere in the page so that if he was reverted he could complain that it was vandalism due to removing his 'good edits'. In the edit history of the page, however, it can be seen that on my first revert of his material, I took care to separate the bad content from the good content, but he added it straight back in. Reverts 3, 4 and 5 above violate 3RR.

The user was directly warned four times not to do this, once by SchmuckyTheCat, once by myself and then twice by admin EdJohnston after a previous AN3 report was filed. After persisting, Jeffrey was blocked for 48 hours. After his block expired, he returned only two days later to make yet another revert of the material. Jeffrey refuses to acknowledge that his edits have been disruptive and doesn't seem inclined to change his behaviour even after a block. I alerted User:EdJohnston on his talk page but wasn't sure if I should file another report here, so here it is anyway.

NULL talk
edits
00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: User:NULL's summary above appears correct. Since I issued the last block (for 48 hours) it is best if a different admin looks into the case this time around. Jeffrey Fitzpatrick continues with his disruptive refactoring of the talk page even though nobody agrees that it's appropriate, and his changes are always undone by other editors. The previous 3RR case (where he was warned for the same thing) is now archived here. Still further back, Fitzpatrick was blocked for doing the same thing as the IP 202.189.98.131 (talk · contribs). The IP address is still under a range block per this action from April 2011, which I haven't researched any further. Conceivably this editor is a sock of Instantnood, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. Others may look into that if they wish. Even without the sock connection, my proposal would be for a one-month block since this editor is far beyond the reach of persuasion and seems unwilling to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
I have explained many times that my edits were to restore my own comments that Schmucky and NULL had insisted to delete or to refactor for no reason. I agreed not to restore the Unsigned tags already (with one single exception, since I posted a question to Schmucky there). Null simply doesn't listen at all, and keeps lying around as part of his political agenda. I wouldn't restore those deleted/refactored comments on this talk page in two months' time provided that an uninvolved admin will look into its edit history and restore my comments. (Meanwhile, it is important to note that it's Schmucky and Null who disrupted the page by adding back the mislocated bot-generated notification again and again, removing the {{Anchor}} tag that an IP editor had added, and it's Schmucky who on 31st March 2012 refactored Jiang's comment back in 2004.[90]) Jeffrey (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
This user has violated 3RR again begun edit warring at Category:Gondola lifts in China, forcing a C1 tag on the page even though the category is under discussion at CFD. NULL talk
edits
00:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
Bushranger had been very helpful and had helped me settle this already. Jeffrey (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, he told you your restoration of the C1 tag was inappropriate, and issued you an warning for edit-warring on your talk page. It remains relevant evidence that you have a long-term problem of edit-warring across multiple pages. NULL talk
edits
00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You're submitting a tip of an iceberg again, my friend. You daren't mention how it ended up, e.g.[91] Jeffrey (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
It ended up with you being warned and told the removal of the C1 tag was appropriate. Would you like to invite Bushranger to clarify his assessment here? NULL talk
edits
00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Read the diff link. Is that still a warning? Jeffrey (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Utility of a block?

The IP connection to previous socks is not news to me. Neither is the subject matter overlap between Jeffrey, blocked IPs, and some other recently created accounts (and another more long term account I look at). I thought about putting a joke on his talk page asking if he forgot which account he was using and why both hadn't voted early in the cable car CfD. He abandoned publishing his IP in his signature. I'm unsure a month long block is that effective. If it is a sock of Instantnood, then it's just another disposable account. Rather than forcing "Jeffrey" into other accounts and IPs (which just makes the disruption more difficult to track) via a long term block, it may be more useful to transparently and blatantly recognize the account as disruptive while allowing it to continue. A 1RR enforced by short blocks may actually provide less disruption to the project than the wholesale manipulation by random HK IP addresses we had this winter. A CU check, and ongoing peeks, may be warranted to enforce a one account rule. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

On the assumption that Jeffrey is Instantnood, that may be appropriate. However, if he's not, a longer block would be an appropriate response I think. We already know the IP range Jeffrey uses, it's still blocked for the next few days. It will be obvious if he returns on an IP after he's blocked, once the IP range block lapses. NULL talk
edits
00:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I've restored this from the archive. This problem is becoming increasingly worse and needs to be dealt with. The editor has now deliberately disrupted a talk page redirect at Template talk:Taiwan topics despite being aware there is only one template and the redirect is under discussion. NULL talk
edits
20:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:NULL reported by User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick (Result: )[edit]

The problem was that Template talk:Republic of China topics belongs to the old navbox that User:NULL had effectively killed. (He merged the two navboxes despite my protests. The two navboxes had coexisted for four years before he merged them.) Template talk:Taiwan topics is now the only where that I can place my comments on {{Taiwan topics}}. I've only reverted twice his deletion of my comments, and the two reverts were 29 hours apart (whereas he had reverted me thrice).[92][93][94] I had warned him in the edit summaries not to delete my comments again. Jeffrey (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The templates were merged by consensus, you were the only person who objected. You were told by a few editors that turning a redirect into a talk page while that very redirect is being discussed is inappropriate. That's why your edits have been reverted. One template does not need two talk pages. NULL talk
edits
23:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The merge tag was never applied. The discussion period was too short to allow for 'consensus' of any kind. Even worse was that you didn't even state clearly how you are going to carry it out, nor did you go back to the talk page to tell others that you had done it. Only three people (including me) had responded to your merge suggestion. That's hardly any consensus at all. Only you and your long–time co-belligerent Chip had talked about my comment at Template talk:Taiwan topics. (And that's 'a few'?) Please stop presenting only a small tip of an iceberg to the admins. Although they probably won't be misled, what you are doing is indeed increasing their workload. Jeffrey (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
This isn't the place to argue. I'll simply point out that merging the templates was detailed and advertised. Three editors agreed to a merge, one disagreed. NULL talk
edits
23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
You'd never applied the merge tag. And you did the merge in less than 48 hours since you proposed it unofficially and presumed that consensus had already been reached. (Proposed at 22:21, 22 March 2012, merged at 21:55, 24 March 2012‎.) Jeffrey (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't have to apply the merge tag, TFD isn't a requirement for editing templates in much the same way RFC isn't a requirement for editing articles. I posted the proposal and advertised it as a matter of courtesy, and gained consensus on the change before enacting it. NULL talk
edits
00:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You know very well how controversial the Taiwan/ROC thing has been, and you know a Tfm request would have been a lot more desirable. Even if you skipped all those steps, it's hard for anyone to consider a less-than-48 hours discussion with only three respondents to be a consensus of any kind. And now you resort to accusing me for disruptions to fulfil your agenda, while the actual fact is that you deleted three times my comment that you don't like for a peculiar reason. Jeffrey (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
There's no point responding to you, you haven't listened to a single piece of advice anyone has given you. You've been warned by two admins about disruptive editing. You've been blocked by two other admins for disruptive editing. You've been warned by one admin against making personal attacks. Yet you continue to edit disruptively, you continue to make personal attacks. There is no foreseeable productive outcome in continuing this conversation. NULL talk
edits
00:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You're continuing your habit of misrepresenting facts. I have requested you to stop and you never listen. The fact is that I was blocked once (instead of twice as you claimed) for my edits to Talk:Demographics of Greater China, and that was because you (and Schmucky) deleted my comments for no reason and reverted my edits blindly. The admin who reminded me to avoid personal attacks accepted when I replaced 'lying' with 'misrepresenting the facts', yet you daren't tell the full picture here. Jeffrey (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
You were blocked twice. Once on your current account and once on your IP address (block log). I'm not responding to you any further here, you're a severe case WP:IDHT. NULL talk
edits
00:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
────────────────────── That was because HiLo48 put his comments at the wrong location and disrupted the process of discussions. You haven't even responded on why you reverted me three times at Template talk:Taiwan topics. That's on the edge of 3RR. Jeffrey (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
No I didn't. You displayed a very weird view on where I should put my responses to others, which was later clearly refuted. Don't falsely accuse me as part of your defence here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Always someone else's fault, never yours, right? NULL talk
edits
00:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
That's definitely not the case my dear friend. Sometimes it's my mistake, sometimes not. But what you have been trying to suggest was that it had always been my fault. Jeffrey (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
We have a saying in English, 死馬當活馬醫. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Admin observation: With the case at hand it's clear that Jeffrey, STC and NULL have all violated 3RR, Jeffrey on both pages, STC on the article talk and NULL on the template talk. I think the main issue with this dispute is that no one else actually cares: no one else edited those pages doing the edit war. I think in this case IDHT works both ways. Thus instead of Ed's suggestion of a one-sided block against Jeffrey, I don't recommend any block. The 3 of them just have to sort out their little fight themselves. (Given my long-standing involvement with the 3 of them I recuse from closing this thread myself.) Deryck C. 08:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you link to the diffs of Schmucky or myself making more than three reverts in a 24 hour period on any page? I'm looking at the page histories of the pages involved and I'm not seeing it. Jeffrey also hasn't recently violated 3RR either. NULL talk
edits
23:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Deryck Chan, blocked Jeffrey for 2 weeks pretty much as you were posting here, and didn't see your post till afterwards. He's cranking up disruption in other places as well now. Schmucky, if you think he's Instantnood, can you file an SPI Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries Elen, I'm just commenting on the case at hand and Ed disagreed with me anyway. Deryck C. 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
There is an SPI case open actually, at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood. NULL talk
edits
00:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Fasttimes68 reported by User:n!ghtl!ght (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page: Louise Vyent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fasttimes68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

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

  • 1st revert: [99] Article was "restored" but still nonetheless reverted.
  • 2nd revert: [100] Revert
  • 3rd revert: [101] Revert
  • 4th revert: [102] Revert

User was already warned by someone else.

Someone else restored the article so I left it and the talk page alone.

Comments:

I am new here but trying to do my best. N!ghtl!ght (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hershebar - reporting user is a sockpuppet. Calabe1992 22:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Indef, by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:50.4.26.231 reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: )[edit]

Page: Parkour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.4.26.231 (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: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Vandalistic edit-warring by the IP. Adding nonsense uncited original research. Reported at AIV but due to backlog no action taken there thus far. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 15:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. The article is semi-protected right now, so this won't continue. If the IP commits one more vandal edit I'll block. One could argue that the IP's edits are not intelligent but not necessary vandalism. Next time, Dr. K, please leave it be and don't revert a half a dozen times: the wiki won't break in the meantime. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
    • I agree. The wiki is resilient and mechanisms are in place to reverse even the worst vandalism. The problem is how long do we want to keep this IP speaking in Wikipedia's voice and saying all kinds of nonsense to the reader and what this does to Wikipedia's reputation. If you don't have a problem with that I can easily adjust to accomodate. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Elizadewberry reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: blocked 31 hours)[edit]

Page: Ted Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 17:44, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Added that he dates Elizabeth Dewberry.")
  2. 19:47, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ dates Elizabeth Dewberry")
  3. 20:04, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Dates Elizabeth Dewberry")
  4. 21:15, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 487397477 by Bbb23 (talk)Editor wrongly said it was not source compliant.")
  5. 22:12, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 487403491 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk); editor made false claim of unreliable source")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • The first edit is the first attempt to add and is not a revert; the remaining four are all reverts.

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 22:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

User:216.165.95.72 reported by User:Ducknish (Result: )[edit]

Page: 0.999... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.165.95.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, attempts to reason through the edit summaries have been made though

Comments:


Constant attempt to change the content of the article in a way that I'm pretty sure is mathematically incorrect and intended as vandalism.

Anon editor continued to edit war from 216.165.95.73 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Both IPs were given 3RR warnings, and both IPs continued to edit war afterwards. Page protection has also been requested at WP:RPP. Singularity42 (talk) 03:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:108.14.222.208 reported by User:Gobonobo (Result: )[edit]

Page: Ed Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.14.222.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [116]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [121]

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122][123]

Comments:
This user seems to be continuing where User:74.108.154.229 left off. I've tried to remove some of the unsourced content and the unreliable sourcing (which seem to be violations of BLP). Despite encouraging use of the talk page in edit summaries and posting my reasoning there, all I'm seeing are reversions and WP:IDHT (though, to be fair, it could also be an unfamiliarity with policy). I'm going to step away from the article now regardless. Gobōnobo + c 02:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Oldmonk7 reported by User:Beyond My Ken (Result: 24-hour block)[edit]

Page: Hindu Kush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oldmonk7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [124]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129], [130]

Comments:
Oldmonk7 has been reverted by three different editors now, and has been told by two (one is me, the other is an admin) that he must get consensus for the (sourced) material he objects to on the article's talk page but his response has been to continue to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

  • I agree with BMK's report--thank you for filing it. Edit war cases aren't always simple, but this one is. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:89.100.207.51 reported by User:BusterD (Result: Both warring editors blocked 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Katana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [131]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [138]

Comments:

I'm an uninvolved editor who happened upon this activity. This recent warring comes in the context of a content dispute between the ip listed and User:Samuraiantiqueworld about a single word in the lede to Katana. The registered user has cited his or her assertion and made several attempts to draw a talk discussion in edit summaries, but the ip user continues to revert, reverting the escalating warning notices on the ip's talk. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Both blocked. I was tempted to block just the IP, but given the talk page behavior and the edit summaries, both are equally at fault. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Bluesatellite reported by User:Particled (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: MDNA (album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: