Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive184

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:El duderino reported by User:Kelly (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Seamus (dog) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 16:52, 22 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488667342 by Kelly (talk) no way, this has nothing to do with Seamus")
  2. 19:08, 23 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* External links */ Undid 2 revisions by User:Arzel -- restoring 2 ext. links removed (again) without consensus")
  3. 21:15, 23 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488867868 by Kelly (talk) again, no consensus for this removal")
  4. 03:21, 24 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 488888304 by Arzel (talk) it's not a violation. need consensus for your interpretation")
  • Diff of warning: here

Kelly hi! 03:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that User:Kelly did not notify me that she filed this report. Also, she and User:Arzel are removing content against consensus. But most importantly, there is no 3RR violation. This frivolous report is an obvious attempt to weaken someone whom she considers an ideological opponent at the article. El duderino (abides) 04:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I have asked User:El duderino to agree to wait for consensus before adding his link again. EdJohnston (talk) 20:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I will stop trying to add it in the current context (Wp:EL). For the record though I think there are more editors supporting it's inclusion, judging from edit history and talkpage discussion. It's clear that Kelly and Arzel are there to slowly break down the article -- see two related ANI threads for more info. For example, I offered a compromise of working it into the article text, as it is at the Romney 2012 campaign, but neither of them chose to even discuss that option. El duderino (abides) 21:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Result: Closed with no action, keeping in mind El duderino's agreement to wait for consensus regarding the link. The editors can always open an WP:RFC to get more opinions on the value of the link. EdJohnston (talk) 22:43, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Stoopsklan reported by User:SudoGhost (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Christopher Walken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stoopsklan (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: Talk:Christopher Walken/Archives/2012#Natalie Wood

Comments:
Continued edit warring despite requests to discuss the material being inserted. - SudoGhost 23:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I did head warning and was clearly not edit warring. As you can see in said article it's been appropriately resolved. I do apologize to SudoGhost for the inconvenience and assure you it will never happen again! Stoopsklan (talk) 00:45, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been resolved in any way, you inserted the same material with the same undue reference multiple times, without any discussion. This is the very definition of edit warring. - SudoGhost 00:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - The page has been protected, and there is a discussion at the article's talk page, so I don't think anything is required here, but instead of removing the report outright I'll leave that to the judgement of an administrator. - SudoGhost 04:06, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected - For three days, by another admin. Use this time to try to reach consensus on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:19, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:JTBX (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: The Godfather (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This is way too long for anormal complaint, so let me know if there is anywhere relevant I should go to post, or if you prefer as you are busy to let people like this get away freely.

Collapsed for brevity EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I have now edited my complaint to a short version, I have added an addendum of a longer version if you are interested in the details:

I realised The Godfather needed to be improved for details and chronological flow was missing. Ring-Cinema had also been editing it for some time. My plot draft included more words, but even though later I trimmed plot to 700 to better reflect WP:PLOT, changes were reverted with absolutely no good reason.


Previous version reverted to: [7] Version before I officially began improving plot to better reflect film after watching it recently.

  • 1st revert: [8] Complete revert of my work, I reverted it back here [9] and told him to discuss on talk page.
  • 2nd revert: [10] reverts back immediately rather than going to talk page and tells me to bring draft to talk page and discuss. His double standards only begin here. I bring draft to talk page, he replaces it with article version. After wards I manage to make a copy on the talk page and edit improvements from there with another User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, making us 3 editors. As you can see from the editing history, he is clearly going for brevity rather than anything else, even sacrificing an improved plot. AT this point anyway, because as mentioned much later I cut it down to a lower word count than the current version and he still wouldn't accept.Note the talk page history [11], by 11:56, 19 April 2012‎.
  • 3rd revert: [12] and proceeds to make his tiny changes,

none of these are improvements. After confronting him on the talk page, the fact that the plot was more improved, concise yet included all details with flow, I added it again in the article this time, using this description for my edit, as the plot and edit actually conformed to this description [13]

Well well well:

  • 4th revert: [14] Again, rejected by whom? him of course.

It appears he is violating WP:OWN, WP:EW, WP:DE and TE, possibly WP:SPA (his name). If that does not seal the deal, notice how I have not placed a warning on his page. Because he has already received not only warnings, but a one week block for the same activity some time ago. Carefully read through his talk and archives here and here as well as his block log.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Links provided above and below.

Detailed version (Read if extra details necessary)[edit]

Initially I began editing the article plot for brevity, but after watching the film recently a week ago, I realised it needed to be improved for details and chronological flow was missing. Ring-Cinema had also been editing it for some time. I would advise to open links one at a time to avoid confusion. My plot draft included more words, but as you will see later, even though I trimmed plot to 700 to better reflect WP:PLOT, changes were reverted with absolutely no good reason.

  • 1st revert: [15] Complete revert of my work, I reverted it back here [16] and told him to discuss on talk page.
  • 2nd revert: [17] reverts back immediately rather than going to talk page and tells me to bring draft to talk page and discuss. His double standards only begin here. As you can see from the editing history, he is clearly going for brevity rather than anything else, even sacrificing an improved plot. AT this point anyway, because as mentioned much later I cut it down to a lower word count than the current version and he still wouldn't accept. Anyway, at the time I discuss at the talk page citing Inception and Mulholland Drive as having longer than 700 words due to editor consensus but improved plots as a result. Note the first paragraph of Inception, which introduces concepts in the film. Following this model I placed the draft on the talk page introducing characters in the first paragraph to get the confusion out of the way. I admit I do not leave edit summaries due to rush of editing. Note the talk page history [18], by 11:56, 19 April 2012‎.

At this time User:Gareth Griffith-Jones, another established editor of this article, joins and help me edit the draft, as well accepting the task I have placed forth. Him and I edit together, but see this [19] Ring replaces mine and Gareth's plot on the talk page with the exact copy of the article plot. Calling it "the best current draft". I confront him over this as you can see on the talk page several times [20].

To avoid conflict, I placed two drafts on the page, mine and Gareth’s collaboration, and the version he wishes. [21]. However, I later merged them incorporating the changes he wanted, and miraculously, making it 700 words rather than 750ish which it was. The plot now has the correct year (1945) when the story begins, and all characters etc. [22] [23]. I and Gareth discuss repeatedly on our talk pages, which you can see. User talk:Gareth Griffith-Jones User talk:JTBX

Now look at this ridiculous nonsense. [24] He states "other editors" but which, the only editors editing the plot are me Gareth and him, and if taken into account how regularly then only me and Gareth. If a consensus means anything on Wikipedia, 2 vs 1 pretty much seals it, plus the fact I incorporated his changes. When the plot was above 750 words, he had at least one leg to stand on, but now he has no reason at all and this reply was unwarranted. [25], I had not only incorporated improvements, but made the plot 700 words.

[26], check it out, even though he originally wanted "brevity" he accuses me of leaving out information (specifically that Vito wanted better of Michael rather than join the Mafia) I deem superficial, even though (here's the kicker), that information was already in my plot, but better placed on a later paragraph, when it happens in the film. He obviously has not been reading my plot all this time, and has been caught with his pants down playing his usual semantics game. Either that or (jokes) English isn't his first language.

And the fact that he kept the article stating the plot begins in 1946, when it is an obvious fact the plot of Godfather begins in 1945 and Gareth backed me up on this [27].

Seeing a practical go ahead from Gareth, who stated that he agreed and liked our version better (again read all of this), [28] I added it to the article. But of course:

  • 3rd revert: [29] and proceeds to make his tiny changes,

none of these are improvements. After confronting him on the talk page, the fact that the plot was more improved, concise yet included all details with flow, I added it again in the article this time as a test to see if he would revert it again, using this description for my edit, as the plot and edit actually conformed to that description [30]

Well well well:

  • 4th revert: [31] Again, rejected by whom? him of course.

Gareth does not want to have a conflict and has edited the article going along with Ring since, but I have abstained until this is finalised. I wish for a temporary block because I simply cannot edit the plot without him reverting it.

Comments:
As a side note, If any of you have watched Godfather, please read the plot in the article, and the plot on the talk page. You make up your mind which is better and which has the larger word count. I sincerely do not know what he wants or wishes to prove with this, but is an obstacle to any improvement of a quality plot for the article. --JTBX (talk) 19:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

JTBX has made suggestions for the plot summary. I have agreed with some and not agreed with others. I incorporated many of his suggestions and proposed areas where we are in agreement and further changes would seem productive. Gareth and I have a good relationship with plenty of give and take and there is nothing false about our collaboration as he has suggested. On Gareth's talk page, he tells JTBX that he "thought you [JTBX] were going to wait until you had some response to your posting on the article's Talk page. Then I found my friend User:Ring Cinema was on the case. I am sure we three can work well together. Cheers, Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 14:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)" JTBX has been invited to contribute on the talk page of the article and his concerns have been addressed. For example, he thought that the city of New York should be mentioned in the plot summary; I agreed and found a very smart place to include it. He thought last week that we should include information about the years of the action of the film but there was information from Gareth that JTBX's information was inaccurate; only today we have cleared that up. There are many details but I won't waste time with that tedium.
What is happening is that we are engaging in the give and take of trying to find ways to change the article for the better. As it happens, my recent changes are as often as not an effort to incorporate his suggestions into the plot summary. Sometimes he takes my suggestions, sometimes he doesn't. I think that is a normal way to collaborate. If he wants to discuss on the talk page, he will find that there will be views exchanged and he will be heard. That's how it should be and that's how it is with me. If he is upset that not all of his ideas were endorsed by others, I think he has an unreasonable expectation. As I mentioned to him already, I think he has good ideas and I am happy about his contributions. I'm not happy about this action, but nobody's perfect. --Ring Cinema (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You can dress it up that way if you like, but written words and actions are totally different things. Do not fall for this nonsense, he writes well and so on to give this image, but his block log and interaction with others as can be seen by this page, is another thing. If I improved the plot, both by shortening the word count and by incorporating extra details, you have no right to revert without good reason (which as I stress, you have not, only that YOU don't accept it). The plot of my draft is 700 words, the plot in the article as a result of conservative reverts to keep that way on your part, again I stress for no reason, is 750 words and is a mess flow wise. Gareth can be thrown about between us and you must be cackling but I feel bad because he and I only want to improve it but you want ownership. I have been through many reverts for plot articles time and time again all provided with good reason from editors for me to accept, yours, frankly does not. It should be considered why I would take time to even bring up and write this complaint. A permanent block would be necessary, a temporary block would be fine though as you have experience of that. JTBX (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You are complaining because you don't like my edits, even though I have accepted many of your suggestions. Each time I reverted you, I immediately returned to adopt as much of your language as I agreed with. Then I found other places to put in the material that I agreed with you should be incorporated. I think you should have mentioned that in your complaint. So that is how the give and take works. You proposed many changes, I accepted some. I proposed a change that I think you accepted, too. That's how it goes. I agreed with you that we should take up the matter of Michael's transformation. Instead, you just returned everything to your previous proposal. And I asked you again to work with the other editors. But if you think that means all your proposals will be accepted, that is not a reasonable expectation. --Ring Cinema (talk) 22:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(Laughter) Really? "You are complaining because you don't like my edits, even though I have accepted many of your suggestions." Let me just say, you cannot actually believe that. A total falsehood. It's the other way around, I incorporated your suggestions into the draft plot as a result of compromise and cut down the words, it is you who keeps reverting it and placing very very tiny changes. You in fact, did not add most of the changes I asked for, but thats the point, I shouldn't have to ask you. You do not own the article. And as faras changes ago you didn't introduce anything to the plot at all. You simply revert and (maybe) add in something I have suggested. But you don't own it, again I stress.

Just look at what he wrote above, here's the quote : "For example, he thought that the city of New York should be mentioned in the plot summary; I agreed and found a very smart place to include it." So I have to ask permission from him? He owns the article, my improvement must be reverted wholesale and put back in later by him?

"He thought last week that we should include information about the years of the action of the film but there was information from Gareth that JTBX's information was inaccurate; only today we have cleared that up." Correction, it took over two days to "clear up", it was hardly a clear up because as you are too scared to mention, I was right the first time and Gareth backed me up, when Gareth it states in the novel the year is 1945, you tried to weasel your way out of it (read Godfather talk page). Two editors (me and Gareth) with correct information shouldn't have to wait two days for you to "approve", but then of course, to revert once we add it.

You do not leave messages on the talk page regarding your edits, once we edit, you should coem to the talk page and discuss it, but the fact is me and Gareth agreed to that plot and added it, you don't but you simply revert.

"There are many details but I won't waste time with that tedium. " Exactly.

You are the only editor I have come across, and many others I presume have come across looking at your behaviour for over 3 years, to be this adamant and to flagrantly violate all the relevant policies. Again, you are warring and your reverts are not justified. You do this on purpose to annoy people for no reason. No reason. End of story. Block. JTBX (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

You are accusing me of bad faith; that's over the line. At the risk of repeating myself, when I reverted you I then went back and included as many of your suggestions as I agreed with. Then I invited you to discuss it, which is normal behavior. Yes, I then followed up with some small changes because, as I mentioned to you, it is better to make small changes and see if they are accepted. This is a good practice for Wikipedia. Your words suggest that you think you have carte blanche to change the article; on the contrary, other editors have a say about your edits. That is why you were asked to work with us by both me and Gareth, consistent with policy. Everyone is edited on Wikipedia. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
(I should mention that your recounting of the 1945/46 dispute is inaccurate. I don't know why you deny it, but it was unclear which date was correct until today. Yes, you said 45, I pointed out to you that Gareth said 46 and today Gareth confirmed that you were right. So what is your problem there?) --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
You reverted me multiple times, as I have proven here, even when I improved the article. I edited with consensus from Gareth, but we had to wait for you because we knew you wouldn't accept in light of your recent reverts. Bad faith is a light way of putting it, but its rich that you would say I was accusing you of it. It is only me, you and Gareth actively editing the plot. The small changes you placed are void, because
  • 1. They consist of slight trimmings of a 750 plot, even though my plot was 700 words which you keep reverting.
  • 2. The details you did add were put forth by me and Gareth after literally arguing over it with you and after you revert my edits, so in affect what we have is you reverting my edits, then taking the ideas that do sit with you and adding it to the plot, though not accomplishing anything because the plot I have put forth adds missing details, chronologically flows and is 700 words. What more could you ask for. But you don't ask for anything, just keep reverting solely by yourself. Gareth is a neutral party who does not want you to be blocked because he's just too nice. But that doesn't matter, fairness and upholding Wikipedia policy matters. You are being unfair, and an obstacle to improving the article for yourr own ego. But you've heard this a thousand times before, because of numerous blocks and confrontations with adminstrators dating back 2009. Some people never learn.

"I should mention that your recounting of the 1945/46 dispute is inaccurate. I don't know why you deny it, but it was unclear which date was correct until today. Yes, you said 45, I pointed out to you that Gareth said 46 and today Gareth confirmed that you were right. So what is your problem there?" It was clear the date was 1945 from the beginning, from factual internet searches, the novel plot and the introduction to the article itself (impossible to ignore unless you are a troll such as yourself). Gareth watched the VHS he has and proved me correct then days later backed it up with the novel. But you still didnt accept (see talk page) until now. Through persistence. Nice try but if anyone is reading this with open eyes they can see through your falsifications. Again I do not have time to waste with this clear troll who has been pushed into a corner with two templates here calling for his block. End his ridiculous charade so that real editors can get to work instead of wasting our precious time. JTBX (talk) 23:59, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a good example of the problem. The novel is not a source for the plot summary of the movie, but you don't know that. To know the year the film starts, the film must be consulted, in case they changed it from the novel. Gareth did that today or yesterday. So now we know. --Ring Cinema (talk) 00:35, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
So when Gareth consults the film/novel its some how acceptable (because you want to have good relations with him to use him), but when I, for over a week, have been stressing the same thing with many other improvements (that Gareth has helped me with because clearly you do not know what consensus means as you have demonstrated so elementarily here haha), it is not. Again, nice try. Keep digging your own grave. This won't end the way you would like. JTBX (talk) 03:52, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

break[edit]

  • Comment: Please see WP:TL;DR "distill your thoughts into bite size pieces." And anyway I'm not sure this is the right venue, as EdJ said elsewhere. Full disclosure: I've had similar argument with User:Ring Cinema at another film article (No Country for Old Men) and I reported him to 3RRNB above (he clearly violated 3RR but it was deemed "Stale"[32]), so I generally agree with JBTX -- but J, I think you're spinning your wheels here trying to reason with him, and possibly hurting your case. If you want others to weigh in, don't continue the dispute here. If his current reverting is actionable, someone will step in. If not, other WP:DR steps are still open as I suggested on my talkpage. El duderino (abides) 04:16, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected - Three days. I have resisted the temptation to block JTBX for personal attacks at this noticeboard. Both parties are well advised to ask the opinion of User:Gareth Griffith-Jones on any further changes they want to make, since he seems neutral and is willing to help. EdJohnston (talk) 04:38, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Ed. On balance, it's a fair decision. Thanks for your time. --Ring Cinema (talk) 08:50, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia dispute resolution methodology: TLDR any complaints, but if I happen to come across something that looks like a personal attack from the person being reverted by a disruptive editor they get blocked? Okay. Well I do not know what to say to that. Right now I am questioning what happens next after the 3 day protection. Isn't it better just to get rid of this claim and start afresh? I can make it concise if that is what everyone is after. Oh and elduderino, I did not start this cycle of abuse of the claim page, Ring-Cinema began commenting first and it warranted a reply. Other wise, which is what he wanted, adminstrators (who cannot read the whole claim TLDR) would have just picked up the manipulations he wrote as a justification for his actions and rendered it stale as happened to you. JTBX (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
EdJohnston advised both me and JTBX to "ask the opinion of User:Gareth Griffith-Jones on any further changes they want to make" (see previous paragraph). Since that time, JTBX has made at least two edits on the page in question without consulting Gareth. I suggested that the three of us proceed on the basis of unanimity for the time being and there was no objection to that proposal. However, Here and here, JTBX has made changes to the article without consulting and without consensus. --Ring Cinema (talk) 23:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
I originally thought of engaging Gareth but as you can see on his messages to Ring-Cinema he has other plans, trying to court me along falsely so that they can continue editing the article as if they own it. Besides it was a suggestion and not written in stone. I have been busy but will open a RFc as that was the original plan. Ring's so called violations of mine are a joke. Look at the history, a user called Chaheel edited an improvement to the plot, cutting out two unnecessary words which I already had cut out in my plot draft I had put forward. But if I had put those improvements forward, I would have been reverted, (which actually heppened by Gareth), the acting neutral editor but in reality colluding with Ring to violate WP:PLOT and policy. Meat-puppetry?

If that isn't enough, Ring took the issue to the Adminstrators noticeboard wrongly, but admin Captain Screebo noticed he was a known edit warrior by looking through his history. We have already discussed it at Dennis's page, who noticed the same thing. Despite all of this, I still wanted to remain friendly with Gareth and reached out to him on his talk page, after editing The Godfather Part II, the second film, which had a plot of over 2,000 words. I cut it down after a lot of effort to about 1,200, but Gareth reverted my changes as unacceptable. Okay, I thought. And then saw this User Talk: Ring Cinema, he immediately notified Ring before anyone else, even though Part II has nothing to do with the conflict.

If personal attacks mean anything, look at how Ring responded on Gareth's page to me. Thanks JTBX (talk) 00:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Aworopaypbs reported by User:MarkBurberry32 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Phillips Brooks School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aworopaypbs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [33]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [34]

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

Comments:

This isn't actually 3RR, it's an edit war, we're removing copyvio from the article concerned, this user is intent on putting it back.

MarkBurberry32|talk 23:01, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's wait and see if the warnings had an effect. EdJohnston (talk) 00:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: No action. The editor ceased adding the copyvios within a few minutes of getting his first warning. If he comes back and continues an immediate block is appropriate. Let me know on my talk page or report it at WP:AIV. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Somedifferentstuff reported by User:ProfJustice (Result: STALE)[edit]

Page: Shooting of Trayvon Martin (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: [35]

°Remember, you need only *2* reverts to violate WP:1RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.°


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]

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

Comments:
This article has a 1RR warning with no time expiration. I gave the user a warning on his talk page to self revert. He didn't heed the warning which can be seen here [39].

!This user had previous issues with the revert rules as seen, this year alone, here[40] and here [41] and here [42] and here [43] and here [44] and here [45] and here [46], etc...

Comments:

This user is upset because he was recently blocked as can be seen above (the case regarding him is currently 3rd from the top) and then had 2 unblock requests denied as can be seen here [47]. Regarding the material referenced, I initiated a discussion on the talk page on April 23 which can be seen here [48].

Nothing to be upset about. If the previous block re: the 1 RR is based on the proper application of that rule as you outlined in your complaint above, I accept that. There have to be some reasonable rules that we should all go by to keep the articles stable and make things fair for all editors.

On April 24, user:Isaidnoway, who was involved on the talk page, rewrote the sentence which can be seen in the article's history here [49]. As of this posting, her version is the version currently contained in the article. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:22, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This issue is whether or not you violated the 1 RR, not what the current version of the article is at any given time. I'd suggest this noticeboard may not even be the correct forum for this discussion (I don't know that, however). Wouldn't your user talk page be a better place for this sort of quid pro quo?
  • I just noticed something that I'd like an admin to take a look at. If you look at this diff [50] from this noticeboard, user:ProfJustice replaced my signature with his and removed the administrator's comment stating that he was blocked. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:09, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
All this is irrelevant. The last statement, obviously that was an accident. I'm new to this process and was trying to get the formatting correct. Why would I replace that sig anyway? The block was already expired. I didn't mean to save that, sorry. If someone would be so kind as to correct it, I'd appreciate it. Unlike some editors who have chronic problems with revert wars, that was my first block and I'm sorry, but I'm not familiar with this noticeboard or this process. If I had been, I would have seen the original complaint here and would not have submitted an unblock request. The reverts were more clearly posted here, than explained in the block on my user talk page.
Nevertheless, none of this has anything to do with somedifferentstuff's violation of the 1 RR. There is nothing wrong with me requesting a block for exactly the same violation I was just blocked for, is there?
I have nothing personal against you some, I simply checked the article's history because I think it is fair for the policy to applied consistently to all editors, that's all. If any of the other editors were violating it instead of you, I would have requested the same. I hope you understand that. Kind Regards, ProfJustice (talk) 14:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Stale. We don't typically go back in time - both of those are from April 23 - today is the 25th (at least where I am). Also, ProfJustice, please do not reply paragraph-by-paragraph by inserting your comments in the middle of theirs - always post below so as to keep signatures intact, so we can see who made the entire comment (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:40, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I see. Obviously I couldn't post this earlier since got a 24 hour ban for the same behavior I reported here. Well, I guess that's justice - Wikistyle. ProfJustice (talk) 18:18, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Sarcasm never helps (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Factsonly94 reported by Nomoskedasticity (talk) (Result: pprot )[edit]

Page: Dartmouth College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Factsonly94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:32, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489104850 by ElKevbo (talk)")
  2. 21:10, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Student groups */ See discussion page for explanation")
  3. 21:15, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489217418 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) There should be... look at the post I just added at the bottom of the talk page")
  4. 21:23, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Student groups */ The issue is with the phrasing. Such a biased reference goes against scholarship.")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Talk page: [51] -- please note that although this editor is now participating, he/she is also continuing to revert. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Armbrust and User talk:78.147.184.47 reported by User:Ks0stm (Result: Both blocked)[edit]

Page: 2012 World Snooker Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Armbrust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 78.147.184.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [52] (I'm not sure if this is what it's asking for, but this is the change that initially started the edit war.)

Armbrust:

78.147.184.47:


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments: I fully protected the page but would like outside input on whether more action is warranted. Ks0stm (TCGE) 23:36, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

  • The page that has been protected 2012 World Snooker Championship is an ongoing sporting event and needs to be edited. There are countless responsible editors who will contribute in the correct manner to this page. Why should we all be punished for the behaviour of two people? Spc 21 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:WLU reported by User:Bittergrey (Result: Stale)[edit]

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


  • 1st revert: 21:26, 1 April 2012 WLU[68]
  • 2nd revert: 01:11, 2 April 2012 WLU[69]
  • 3rd revert: 11:00, 2 April 2012 WLU[70]
  • 4th revert: 22:59, 2 April 2012 203.118.187.167[71] (SPI #1 archived with the conclusion "Definitely were socks". It was later clarified to include "Probably actually not socks. All IPs highly disruptive, but editing habits inconsistent. I should have checked more thoroughly." My comments below were correct at the time they were written.)
In the light of NativeForeigner's comments here and here, would the closing admin please strike through the 4th revert from the 203. from the April 1st set, and given I wasn't socking and the second SPI is not yet closed, I believe the 4th revert from the April 20th set should probably be struck as well. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Please note that the edit warrior concerned with an AN3 that accurately lists eight reverts himself filed one against me with eight reverts obscurely listed, when at the time I only made four reverts in three days[72]. BitterGrey (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
  • 1st revert (or 5th?): 18:04, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[73]
  • 2nd revert: 20:59, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[74]
  • 3rd revert: 22:55, 19 April 2012‎ WLU[75]
  • 4th revert: 01:48, 20 April 2012‎ 203.118.187.226[76](SPI #2, filed before the alteration of SPI #1, was closed without conclusion about the IP:"...were closing this...")


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [77]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [78]

Comments:
I know this is stale, but I wanted it on record that WLU, who reported me for making four reverts in 41 hours[79] himself made four reverts in 25 hours 33 minutes in the same conflict. He also used a sockpuppet to do so[80]. I didn't file this report before, since I was waiting for confirmation from SPI.

WLU wrote "I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in." Of course, were there any substance in his "thousands of words" he wouldn't have felt the need to resort to sockpuppetry and personal attacks. He hadn't shown any interest in this article (or several others he's fought me at) before his wikihounding campaign started over a year ago. I think it is best that he leave me and the several articles he hounded me to alone. BitterGrey (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: Another editor was kind enough to revert "203.118.187.167," so far the only penalty for WLU's use of sockpuppets in an edit war. Of course, when WLU hit 3RR again another IP showed up promptly to make the fourth. A second SPI was opened. I requested a 3O and it would appear that WLU doesn't want to risk the 3O seeing a version other than his own.BitterGrey (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Page is now protected [81]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
  • If any SPI clerk wishes to make something out of that case, good for them. This 3RR complaint has merit, but it works both ways: it takes two to tango and you two are the only ones doing this dance. You should both be blocked, maybe. A third (and fourth, and fifth) opinion would be very helpful, and possibly a topic ban for both of you specifically for this article, which has been a pain since at least 2006. It is obvious that the two of you cannot come to an agreement. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I requested a 3O yesterday. A topic ban on both of us would be unfair: WLU's only involvement in this page (and all but one of the others he's fought me at) was as part of his year-long wikihounding of me. Furthermore, since using puppets is nothing new for WLU(eg.[82]), and he already has three puppets in play[83] the ONLY effect of a topic ban would be to ensure control of the article by the puppetmaster. BitterGrey (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
From what I can tell that directs to that long discussion on the talk page, "Fruend and Blanchard's Paedophilia article doesn't belong here". I see the two of you, I see no 3--so it seems to me there's no 3O yet. What I see is a long and tedious dispute: that you think you're right is par for the course. I'm not even saying that you're wrong, mind you--it's just that everywhere I go--your talk page, the article talk page, this edit-war thread, the SPI, the SPI archive--I see the same things, links, accusations. It's depressing. And "three puppets in play"--that's rhetorical overkill. If it's him, it's a dynamic IP, so the number is meaningless. No, the only effect of a topic ban need not be WLU's control. There are ways to prevent that, short of going to their house and smashing their laptop to bits with a diaper. I don't wish to speak for other admins, but I think we're done here. Find someone to act on or render an opinion on the SPI, maybe. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
True, requesting a 3O and getting one are different things, but I think my request shows good faith. Also in good faith, I've made do with only one position per conflict. In contrast, WLU's position in this conflict changed last week (he'd "been reading the article wrong for a very long time.") and again in December. Oh, and you might find hammers or almost anything else to be more useful for smashing laptops, Drmies :) BitterGrey (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
A hammer would work better, yes. And I'm not denying your effort in starting that 3O. The article needs help and attention from people who aren't you two, I'm afraid. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
"people who aren't you two"? I'm hurt. If it weren't for me, the paraphilic infantilism article would be like the diaper fetishism article. (Well, worse actually, since the latter borrowed from the former back in 2007.) There is, however, an ongoing ownership issue that needs to be taken care of. BitterGrey (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I've asked the admin who looked into 203.118.187.167, .43, and .209 to look into .226 as well. BitterGrey (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Given NativeForeigner's comment here, the "definitely were socks" comment is now incorrect and all 203. edits are essentially irrelevant. Though there is edit warring, there is no 3RR violation. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU attempting to close or modify my requests, as he's tried here[84][85], is typical. After he wikihounded me me to Sexology, he marked the resulting ELN discussion "resolved" not once(@500 words) but twice(@3K words) before accepting that I was right. BitterGrey (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
My request seems reasonable since NativeForeigner has said in three places that his initial statement of "definitely a sock" is in fact wrong (here, here and here). It seems like common sense to make the section reflect NativeForeigner's actual, current conclusions and take out or strike through the 4th revert(s) rather than leave up an old and misleading summary. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Please review the difference between a "request" and an edit[86], as well as between 'probability' and "fact". NativeForeigner has now gone both ways on SPI #1, from "definitely" socks to "probably" not. Even before this, WLU wrote "NativeForeigner's comment is a single person's opinion that is not definitive". Let's see what becomes of SPI #2. BitterGrey (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I see it as fundamentally dishonest not to note that the person who initially made the assessment has since substantially changed their mind to say the opposite of what is said above. Changing it to "probably not a sock" is fine with me. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Since you raised the issue of honesty, WLU, I'll point out that you've claimed that WLU stands for both the initials of your alma matter "my userid is based on the university I attend", and also your own initials "My user name is actually my initials". Unless both claims are true, I would consider one or both statements deceptive. In contrast, what I wrote above was correct at the time I wrote it, based on the archived conclusion of an administrator serving as a sockpuppet investigator. BitterGrey (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Nobody should care where my user name came from and why I picked it - though obviously I chose a pseudonym for the anonymity it provides me, anonymity you keep trying to break through despite rules against it.
Your claim about what you wrote above being correct is in fact wrong - it may have been true when you wrote it, but it misrepresented the admin's comments for three days. The decision changed on April 22nd [87], but you didn't indicate this until April 25th [88] when the second negative sockpuppet report came back. I don't see that as a minor issue, I see that as fundamentally dishonest gaming - I could have been blocked on the basis of simply wrong information. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 10:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
WP:outing is irrelevant, since WLU posted the contradictory information to Wikipedia himself. In spite of his own self-contradictions, he persists in distorting my comments to accuse me of dishonesty. Regarding the gaming accusation, WLU reported me for four edits in 43 hours[89], when he had made four reverts in 28 hours[90][91][92][93] ... even if we don't count those above. WP:kettle at best. Unlike WLU, I had never even been reported here before. This clean record is something that I will never get back.
I have to admit some displeasure in watching WLU get away with sockpuppetry (according to the archived conclusion of the SP investigator, at least at the time). Perhaps vested contributors really can get away with anything. WLU seems to have some displeasure that I didn't update this frequently enough - even though apparently few if any were paying attention.
Now, since it seems to be the only way that debates between WLU and myself ever end, I'm going to let him have the last word. BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

───────────────────────── Since no action was taken when the SPI was definite that the IPs were socks, no action is expected now that the SPIs are inconclusive. As Drmies wrote (even before SPI #1 was modified), "...I think we're done here." BitterGrey (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Marked as stale. If warring resumes, rereport. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ElliotJoyce reported by User:Ackees (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Henry Morton Stanley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Asiento (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: British African Caribbean Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



Comments:

According to my watchlist, the user ElliotJoyce is systematically going through my edits on as many pages as possible, (going back months in some cases) undoing them, even if they have been longstanding on the page. It is a clear case of harassment. This is not about a particular subject, it is a targeted campaign against myself. They have already been warned today by other users for edit-warring.Ackees (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the information that the Mr. Ackees has changed on the articles in question, you will find that it is often in direct contrast to the source provided. For example, on the African Slave Page, one source in question (Digital History from the University of Houston) stated that profits from the slave trade comprised less than 5% of Britain's economy during industrialization, but Mr. Ackees changed this first to read "at least" 5% and after I reverted it, changed it back to read "approximately" 5%, both false per the source. I investigated his other edits and it appears he is going from article to article, infusing subtle anti-European bias, often in direct contradiction to the source material. Another example is the article Racism in the United Kingdom, where Mr. Ackees changed the wording to say almost the opposite of what it said previously, contradicting the source again. I have gone through his recent edits and have noticed that much of his history here on Wikipedia is simply infusing POV statements and wording in various articles. This is unacceptable and violates a number of policies on the site. I am not correcting Mr. Ackees to harass him; rather, I am correcting him because he is, in essence, vandalizing the pages in question in a very subtle manner that is only realized when one looks at the entire history of edits Mr. Ackees has done. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – Already blocked 48 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Hello; my block has expired and I would like to know if I am within my rights to report Ackees for making a personal attack against me in his edit summary on the Benin City article. Particularly, he has called me "neo-nazi", not to mention he removed accurate material which I have since restored and provided a reliable source for. Please let me know how I can bring this matter to the attention of the administrators- I am new to Wikipedia and I do not know how to report another user or where to report him/her. Thank you. ElliotJoyce (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.239.128.44 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: The Passion of the Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.239.128.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [94]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [98]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [99]

Comments:

The IP has already been blocked for edit-warring and now the block has expired has resumed with the same types of edits. Technically it is not 3RR and I've only included the reverts since the block, but the IP has failed to address the problems with its edits, so I think another block is the order of the day. The IP should have resolved the issues on the talk page before making further edits of a similar nature to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 31h after I filed a request at AIV. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Betty: be aware that you too were edit-warring. If your revert is reverted, DO NOT REVERT AGAIN. If I had actionned this one, I would have blocked both of you - 3 reverts is not a right (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't think three reverts over a period of 5 days is particularly excessive when you are removing clearly unsourced content and original research, the removal of which is supported by consensus on the talk page. It is certainly well within the remit of 3RR, so I'm interested how enforcing a consensus within the remit of 3RR (to remove clearly unsourced content) would constitute edit-warring in this context. By the same token would you have also have blocked User:Doniago (three reverts of the same editor for the same reason across 10 days) and User:History2007 (three reverts of the same editor for the same reasons across 8 days) and User:Musdan77 (two reverts of the same editor for the same reasons across 5 days)? Maybe we could have a few guidelines here. When the consensus supports the removal of unsourced original research how many times as individual editors can we remove the content within a particular timeframe? Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - 31 hours by User:Alexf. Second block in four days. Semiprotection might be considered for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
I did request semi-protection but it was turned down on the grounds it was just one editor that could be dealt with directly. I would like to know where I stand in regards to further attempts to reinstate this material though, since I seem to be barred from removing it now. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
"Unsourced content" or "edits against consensus" are not listed as excuses for WP:EW. We follow dispute resolution, and tag-teaming to avoid 3rr doesn't work either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This is complete bollocks. The editor was adding unsourced original research; this is not a content dispute that dispute resolution can resolve. It's a clear cut case of violating Wikipedia policy, that four editors have independently agree on. I doubt a single editor on Wikipedia would back its inclusion! There has been NO communication between myself and the other editors, and no co-ordination of our reverts i.e. we revert the article to remove the unsourced illegible crap that keeps being added to the article. The problem with the edits is clearly explained on the talk page and no amount of dispute resolution can resolve the problem; it will simply come to the conclusion we have i.e. remove the material until the problems that are clearly highlighted on the talk page are addressed. I won't remove the edits from the article again given your threat above, but at the same time I'm not wasting my time writing up case histories and going to dispute resolution boards just to get a clear-cut case of policy violation removed. I suggest you take a look at the what was being added because tomorrow that will be back in the article and I won't be wasting any more of my time explaining to the editor why it is unacceptable, nor will be initiating any more action against them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
it takes 2 or more to edit war. Although I sympathize, you know the rules. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
While I don't claim to be a scholar of the Wikipedia rules, you're saying it is written down somewhere that if someone adds completely unsourced lies to an article, that if they continue to re-add it we should just stand by and leave it in place until the dispute over their incorrect action is "resolved"? I think you're grossly misinterpreting the rules and their enforcement, and find your behavior towards a tireless contributor like Betty to be entirely misplaced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not this nonsense again. It does not take two to edit war. When you have one or more long time productive, non disruptive editors who are following the guidelines by discussing things on the talk page who are also taking the page back to the WP:CONSENSUS version against a SPA editor with a POV axe to grind there is only one person edit warring. In this specific case the evidence shows that the IP has no desire to learn how things are done around here. Further in this case semiprotection was asked for and turned down. As has been said in other places this misguided protection of POV SPA's is only going to further this Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Loss_of_more_and_more_and_more_established_editors_and_administrators problem. MarnetteD | Talk 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Agreed. Protecting the encyclopedia is not warring. Editors working with the larger consensus should be encouraged to revert disruptive edits in an attempt to avoid even needing to file an incident here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:69.196.160.34 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: List of countries by number of troops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 69.196.160.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:59, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
  2. 00:08, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
  3. 00:23, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
  4. 01:22, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
  5. 01:42, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
  • Diff of warning: here

Tgeairn (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.247.125.237 reported by User:Al E. (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Mr. Irrelevant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.247.125.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [100]


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [106]

Comments:

The user is in violation of 3RR, and the content they keep adding is clearly unencyclopedic, but I thought it was worth noting that they have not continued to revert, and have engaged in discussion on the talk page,[107] for what it's worth. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Result: No action for now, since an IP is discussing. If this happens again, ask for semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:182.182.71.8 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Akbar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 182.182.71.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [108]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [113]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [114]

Comments:

Thats 3 reverts in 24 hours, with a reference that does not support the text. Akbar founded a new religion called Din-i-Ilahi. Therefore his previous religions should not be elavated in the infobox. He refuses to discuss anything on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Result: Article semiprotected two months due to vandalism, including page blanking. No IPs have participated on the talk page in 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:91.63.202.190 reported by User:TheSoundAndTheFury (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.63.202.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: suggest just looking at history: [115]


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

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

Comments:
New account leaps right into topic with a strong, fringe point of view. Happens one day after ban of AnAimlessRoad (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log)) whose editing proclivities and talk page forum-izing were similar. Whether the correlation is causal I have no idea. Yelling in edit summary, accusations of a conspiracy, failure to understand topic matter, immediate edit warring etc. etc. all don't bode well.

Note that 91.63.217.224 (talk+ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · checkuser (log)) may be the same individual.

Update

Um sorry but I think he's already banned. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Judgeking reported by User:Xida2001 (Result: Protected)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [124]

Previous version reverted to: [126]

Previous version reverted to: [128]

Previous version reverted to: [130]

Previous version reverted to: [132]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [135]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [136] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [137]

Although I followed his request to change my edit he still keeps deleting it, I asked for comments and discussion, no answer, if he would just have a CLOSE look at the links I provided he can proof that my edit is correct:

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected - Three days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Promontorylink reported by User:Marie Paradox (Result: Indefinitely blocked for unrelated reasons)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [138]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [143]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [144]

Comments:

Promontorylink's edits and behavior are reminiscent of recent edit warring by Ghostprotocol888, who was blocked not only from editing articles but also his talk page: [145]

Marie Paradox (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI filed here regarding possible link with Ghostprotocol888. 213.177.248.120 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, that was me - got logged out by a server glitch. Yunshui  09:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked by Elockid nearly three hours ago. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:MRC37 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Battle of Bint Jbeil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MRC37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [146]
  • 2nd revert: [147]
  • 3rd revert: [diff]
  • 4th revert: [diff]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [148]


Comments:

The article is WP:ARBPIA article and under 1RR.The revert was done of this edit [149]--Shrike (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Teflontanks reported by User:Shakehandsman (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [150]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [155] (user was warned for vandalism and unconstructive editing, there is vandalism and edit warring occurring).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] Many of the edits involve almost total deletion of the article so no really much to discuss. Others have expressed concern regarding the editors bias in the talk page. Multiple parties have restored the material, I have only done so once.

Comments:

--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Danratedrko reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 31 hours)[edit]

Page: The Avengers (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danratedrko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

  • 1st revert: [156] 01:01, 28 April 2012‎
  • 2nd revert: [157] 01:06, 28 April 2012
  • 3rd revert: [158] 01:19, 28 April 2012
  • 4th revert: [159] 01:23, 28 April 2012
  • 5th revert [[160] 01:36, 28 April 2012‎
  • 6th revert [161] 01:41, 28 April 2012
  • 7th revert [162] 01:46, 28 April 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Danratedrko&diff=489557896&oldid=489557703


Multiple editors posted warnings on his own talk page, and multiple editors have reverted him. He's a serial vandal who after his 6th revert posted insults on my talk page

Comments:

Already blocked. Kuru (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:74.108.165.44 reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Page semi-protected)[edit]

Page: Ed Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.108.165.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [163]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [171], [172], [173]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [174]

Comments:
Page has been Semi-protected earlier this month to prevent WP:DE by ip-hopping contributor. PP requested again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:LuzoGraal reported by User:Ackees (Result: no vio)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [175]

  • 1st revert: