Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive208

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:76.189.111.199 reported by User:Medeis (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: C. Everett Koop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.189.111.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [1]

  • 1st revert: [2] concern with indentation when sources for content is at issue
  • 2nd revert: [3] restoral of unreferenced material to text and continued manipulation of format
  • 3rd revert: [4] continued manipulation of format, deletion of hidden content without consensus or discussion as mentioned on talk, and restoral of unreferenced material preventing In The News nomination from continuing
  • 4.0th revert: [5] restoral of hidden content and continued manipulation of format without discussion at talk and regardless of 3RR warning
  • 4.1th revert: [6] reversion of cited material add to article to meet admin tariqabjotu's explicit notice that the article be expanded to meet the requirements of an ITN nomination.
  • 5th revert: a straight out revesion of a previous edit, the second after he was warned of 3RR and an active AN3 complaint.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [8]

  • Note the IP user's immediate response was to complain that I have a Greek signature [9] before erasing that comment and replacing it with an irrelevant comment after he had been warned of 3RR.
  • Please note the user's actions have been reverted in full and the references needed been added by others while I busy dealing with this edit warring.
  • During the time of this dispute, the article was under nomination for a listing under the Recent Deaths section of In The News on the front page. Please note my edits were made either to add references that had been marked as tagged [10] or to hide unreferenced material which had not been tagged but for which there was no consensus to remove [11]. This was noted by me on the talk page as soon as it was first done [12]. Note that this response this drew was wholesale deletions [13], [14], and this of newly added material [15] requested by an admin here [16] and this contempt [17] on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

  • Comment: This article is developing fast due to Koop's recent death. There is a high rate of edits from many people. The IP has ideas for fixing the article's style and organization and is surely not trying to make it worse. In some cases he has backed your own changes. If he makes himself into an immovable obstacle you could have a case. Also if there is abortion-related edit warring admins might have to step in. Consider making more use of the talk page when you have a disagreement. Tariqabjotu is not acting as an admin when he gives advice about preparing an article for WP:ITN. It looks like better sources are needed. If you don't like the IP's complaint about your Greek-letter signature you might try to get WP:NLS changed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
No, he has absolutely not "backed" my own changes, he has deleted material I hid for later referencing regardless of my explaining that explicitly on the talk page and warning him about it. μηδείς (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, he did just the 2RR, not '3'. --George Ho (talk) 07:52, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Developing fast has nothing to do with it, neither does abortion or any other POV. The problem is this IP user feels entitled to do whatever he likes, wherevever, without discussion, but while responding to an attempt toward dialog with a snipe about a signature. You'll notice there are two complaints against this user by independent editors since the user was notified of this complaint yesterday, one regarding refactored talk page edits and the other a formal ANI. As well as a fifth reversion {http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=C._Everett_Koop&diff=540802418&oldid=540795938] during the same period after this complaint was filed. Please give a ruling based on the fact that five reversions in a row regardless of a warning after the third has nothing to do with quickly adding material to an article. μηδείς (talk) 04:25, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Result: No action. Medeis, you have not made any use of the talk page since my last comment and I see no continuing war. It is now 36 hours since the original reverts you reported. EdJohnston (talk) 14:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Various IPs reported by User:Thaistory (Result: no violation)[edit]

Page: Chatri Sityodtong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 203.116.29.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
58.146.137.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chatri_Sityodtong&oldid=535690775


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [23]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [24]

Comments:
The article is about a businessman, [muay thai] trainer, and gym owner. I added sourced information about the subject's background (including his real name, not just his ring name) and business background (how he made his millions, which allowed him to become a gym owner). None of this information paints him in a negative light. Yet this information has been repeatedly deleted or reverted. I'm really at a loss as to why. All the other editors are IP numbers based out of Singapore. This is my first notice on the noticeboard, apologies if I'm misinterpreting the rules.Thaistory (talk) 03:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. KrakatoaKatie 06:49, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User:98.193.187.197 --> User:Laborinvain reported by Location (talk) (Result:60 hrs )[edit]

Page: Mark Lane (author) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 98.193.187.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) --> Laborinvain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 23:28, 27 February 2013 (edit summary: "Calling Lane "a conspiracy theorist" is pejorative. It is also inaccurate. It implies Lane is the type to believe in conspiracies when, in fact, there is only evidence that he believes in one, the JFK assassination.")
  2. 00:40, 28 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541081119 by Gamaliel (talk) Calling someone a conspiracy theorist at this stage is nothing more than an attempt to discredit them. It adds nothing to the conversation.")
  3. 01:30, 28 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541092371 by Location (talk) Not a valid argument. Calling Lane a CT is nothing but ad hominem.")
  4. 03:35, 28 February 2013 (edit summary: "Adding CT there is nothing but name calling. It offers nothing in terms of historical clarity or value. Adding it is vandalism.")
  5. 05:26, 28 February 2013 (edit summary: "See talk")
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]

Comments:
Given that this was a previously stable article, it appears as though the ISP registered as User:Laborinvain to skirt the 3RR warning that I had given. Location (talk) 06:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 60 hours. I added the extra 12 hours because the IP is a US Comcast address - this will push the block to all night Friday. The autoblock should take care of the IP also; if not, let us know at WP:ANI. :-) KrakatoaKatie 06:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User:159.148.87.183 reported by User:Resolute (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Sandis Ozoliņš (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 159.148.87.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [26] (the meaning of this section is unclear. This link is the article state before any of the edit warring began. 159.148 made a change here on February 10 that was challenged, and the following reverts have occurred since.)

  • 1st revert: [27] (February 13)
  • 2nd revert: [28] (February 19)
  • 3rd revert: [29] (February 21)
  • 4th revert: [30] (February 23)
  • 5th revert: [31] (February 27)
  • 6th revert: [32] (February 28)
  • 7th revert: [33] (February 28)
  • 8th revert: [34] (February 28)


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [35]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This is part of an ongoing debate/argument about Soviet-era birthplaces in the Baltics. The entire Talk:Sandis Ozoliņš page is related to this direct article, with Talk:Leo Komarov, Wikipedia talk:HOCKEY#Baltic states dispute and Wikipedia_talk:Manual of Style/Baltic states-related articles#RfC: Is it desirable to consider that the Baltic states have existed continually since 1918? as other venues for the dispute. 159.148 conveniently appeared in the middle of this and has been warring on the article for two weeks now while arguing on the talk page. User:80.232.217.165, which resolves to the same ISP has made an additional revert using the same argument and has the same singular focus on this one article. I am far too involved in the discussion aspect of this to take any blocking action myself. Resolute 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

  • The article was just fully protected for two weeks at RFPP, so assuming this IP does not hop to another article to continue the dispute, the odds of the edit warring continuing in the near term may be unlikely. Resolute 16:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I left a note for User:Darkwind who did the full protection per RFPP, since I believe semiprotection should be considered. Generally it is best to only report at one of the two places. EdJohnston (talk) 18:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Kasperone reported by User:Ebrahimi-amir (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: Tractor Sazi F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kasperone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [36]


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

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

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I locked the article for one week. Kasperone has clearly been edit-warring, but I'm cutting them slack based on the content of the dispute (a rather controversial image).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Prathambhu reported by User:Induzcreed (Result: )[edit]

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


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




The following statement is the centre of edit war : "the Malayalam film industry returned and established itself in Kochi with a major chunk of locations, studios, production and post-production facilities there".

There were constant reverts without trying to discuss or achieve good faith.

See the talk page: Talk:Malayalam_cinema#Location_of_Malayalam_movie_industry


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [49]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Malayalam_cinema#Page_protected

After constant editwarring, the page was protected for 24 hrs. Soon after the protection was expired, editwarring started again.

User Prathambhu was going against the consensus reached in the talk with some neutral users.

He is also edit warring in another article South Indian film industry:

It seems that this user is using socks to evade 3RR.

--Induzcreed (talk) 08:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: See Talk:Kochi/Archive 2#Edit War a previous report about the same dispute in 2009, also involving Prathambhu, and with some of the same arguments. At that time User:Hiberniantears, an uninvolved administrator, stated ".. Prathambhu is clearly editing in a tendentious manner that creates a strong POV in favor of Kochi". EdJohnston (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
This user always try to glorify and boost Kochi in all his edits. The user is having the edit warring history in all associated articles and have been warned several times.
User_talk:ChroniclerSanjay is probably the sock of User:Prathambhu:
ChroniclerSanjay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), as the account was created only after the edit war started in the article and was used to revert in the same way as Prathambhu was doing. Cheers, -- Aarem (Talk) 03:13, 27 February 2013 (UTC)


I came here through the talk page in User:Prathambhu. He is again edit warring for the same item. This time in the page South Indian film industry.

History : [52]

[Please see the link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=South_Indian_film_industry&diff=prev&oldid=540836748].

This latest edit warring happened after he is notified about the 3RR notice discussion happening here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.103.166 (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

He is not agreeing to common views and always using really bad tone to address other editors in talk pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.90.103.169 (talk) 14:22, 27 February 2013 (UTC)




Kindly let me start by giving the timeline of some of the edits done by myself and a few others in Malayalam cinema, South Indian film industry and Cinema of India and discussion in the talk page of Malayalam cinema. These, I hope, will make everything clear by itself.

I hope for an intervention by administrators to investigate all aspects of this and take necessary action they deem fit. Such an action, in my experience so far, has always restored wikipedia as a dependable source of information.


Timeline

On 21 January 2013‎, I noticed that the version existed in Malayalam cinema page then, contained information on location of the Malayalam film industry to be completely at odds with the version existed in South Indian film industry.

In my edit (click) dated 21 January 2013‎ I changed the info in Malayalam cinema in accordance with the information existed on South Indian film industry undisputed for a long period and provided about 10 news paper reports as citations supporting the statement.

There was no dispute on this for over a month that followed. I request the administrators to particularly note the fact that User:Salih had visited Malayalam cinema page many times during that one month, as can be verified by the edits he made there during this period.

I added the same citation to the existing information on South Indian film industry page on 4 February 2013‎ through my edit (click).


Edit war

On 19 February 2013‎, [POV edit by 69.47.228.36] changed the information I added one month before, along with citations. I request admin attention to the highlighted part. The user 69.47.228.36 removed about 10 news reports from established English newspapers like The Hindu, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Passline Business Magazine, The New Indian Express and Malayalam newspapers with highest circulation like Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Deshabhimani among others. The intention of the edit was to hide the facts as seen by the repeated edits made by 69.47.228.36 to remove news citations completely.

This was when the edit war started immediately joined by User:Aarem aided by a large number of possible sock puppets.

In the Malayalam cinema talk page, I pointed out that the existing information is in accordance with what remain undisputed in South Indian film industry for a long period.

The response to this was the edit by 69.47.228.36 of South Indian film industry page by removing this information that existed undisputed for a long time.


Sock puppets?

The amount of edits back to User:Aarem's version indicates the number of possible sock puppets in his aid to circumvent the 3RR rule. A few examples are below.

Edit by Aarem

Revert by 183.90.103.132 to Aarem version

Revert by 183.90.103.144 to Aarem version

Edit by Aarem

Revert by 192.193.160.10 to Aarem version

Edit by Aarem

Revert by 203.117.37.213 to Aarem version

Revert by 203.117.37.213 to Aarem version

Revert by 183.90.103.159 to Aarem version

Out of the 9 edits listed above, the last 7 edits happened in one single day 21 February 2013‎.

A look at the IPs gives a strong suspicion of them being sock puppets of User:Aarem. Also, importantly, User:Salih who had no disputes of what existed in Malayalam cinema until then joined along with User:Aarem in reverting to his version, showing User:Salih acting under instruction from User:Aarem. Kindly have a look at the edit by User:Salih reverting to version by User:Aarem.


Matter of dispute

I would also like to spare a para to elicit the matter dispute in this context which, I hope, will give the motivation of actions pursued by User:Aarem and co-editors.

The matter of dispute is whether "Kochi is the hub of Malayalam cinema industry"

or whether

"Thiruvananthapuram is also a hub along with Kochi"

The news reports citations that existed all unanimously mention Kochi as the sole hub of Malayalam cinema industry. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Mollywood Comes to Kochi, dated March 31, 2011, Passline Business Magazine. 100px

Shooting Spree in Kochi (Translated title), August 24, 2012. Malayala Manorama. 100px

The reports are from India's most widely read national dailies like The Hindu, Times of India, Deccan Chronicle, Passline Business Magazine, The New Indian Express and most widely read Malayalam newspapers like Malayala Manorama, Mathrubhumi, Deshabhimani among others. All of these reports profusely quote stakeholders in Malayalam cinema cinema like Actors, Directors, Technical persons, producers etc.

These were the evidences for the statement existed in the earlier version in Malayalam cinema and the version existed in South Indian film industry page, undisputed for a long period.

Later on some more fresh news citations proving the same was added by JK and User:ChroniclerSanjay in the talk page and in the page.

Here are those. Article cited by JK, Article cited by ChroniclerSanjay.

It could be seen from the Malayalam cinema talk page that User:Aarem or User:Samaleks or many of the possible sock puppet IPs never give even a single news report from any of the independent news media supporting their claim "Thiruvananthapuram is also a hub along with Kochi". They demanded that their statement be taken at face value and/or based on the links to the websites of some studios that exist in Thiruvananthapuram. These studios date to a period before the industry shifted to Kochi. (This fact is indeed confirmed by many news citations given above which state that "Malayalam cinema was earlier located in Kodambakkam (Chennai) and Thiruvananthapuram earlier" before the shift to Kochi).

This was also pointed out several times by user JK in the talk page.

Faced with such an overwhelming of newspaper report citations in consonance with the tradition of wiki articles, editors User:Aarem, User:Samaleks, Torreslfchero, User:Salih seem to want to steamroll their POV, using numerical superiority they enjoy presently.


Deja vu

Although I did not recognize the new username of User:Aarem initially, I did, immediately after checking his contributions in wiki. Once I did recognize User:Aarem, the arrival of User:Samaleks was expected. It was proven correct within a matter of a week.

I had been through very same situation in Kochi page 4 years ago involving the same set of users including User:Aarem (then using another name) and user User:Samaleks. The duo, with the support of several sock puppets, wanted to add a false statement deprecating Kochi into the wikipedia Kochi page that "Kochi was under economic stagnation until 2003". Under the supervision of administrator Hiberniantears in the talk page discussion they admitted that the statement was without any evidence and withdrew the statement. This can be seen by scrolling down to the end of Kochi Talk page Discussion (click) that happened then.



Plea and hope

I have been in wiki contributing to various topics of interests to me for the last few years. I have not faced any edit wars in any other topic other than that involving Kochi. Even when I did face such of situation of being bullied alone among a numerically superior group (who are the same group as involved here), I have found that administrator intervention has always been impartial and had a redeeming effect on the respective wiki article.

This time too, my only hope is for administrator's intervention, to investigate all the issues raised by all users involved in this page in relation with the edit wars at Malayalam cinema, South Indian film industry, Cinema of India pages and take necessary actions that will keep up with the tradition of wiki as a dependable source of information. Thanks, Sincerely. Prathambhu (talk) 09:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The claims made by this user(Prathambhu) are wrong. See the earlier version which existed in the article way back in 2011: Version in 2011. This was changed by this user to glorify Kochi.
However our point here is not the authenticity of the version, but the edit warring behavior and constant reverts. This user always go against the consensus with a strong POV for Kochi. He uses the sock id Special:Contributions/ChroniclerSanjay to edit war. I was not involved in this edit war, but going through the talk page, I could see that all the issues are discussed many times there. Whoever not agreeing to his POV, he blaims them to be having a common agenda.
Thanks, --Samaleks (talk) 02:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)


Hi admin, Pardon me for the delayed reply (I was travelling, without any net-access).


Purported "Edit"

Samaleks have been kind enough to give the link to the version dated XX-XX-2011 to "prove" my "glorification of Kochi".

As far one can see, my first edit of Malayalam cinema was already pointed out in my earlier reply : my edit (click) dated 21 January 2013.

I never edited the version pointed out by Samaleks. The version I edited did not contain the word Thiruvananthapuram or Kochi.

I changed the word Kerala to Kochi in line with what existed in South Indian film industry undisputed for a long time. Also citations to news reports that explicitly state the same was given.

I am bringing this up just to point out one more instance of falsehoods propagated here by the above user.

On "consensus"

Normally a consensus is reached when people on two sides of the dispute agree on something.

However here it is different.

Users Samaleks and Aarem arranges three users and/or a few sock puppets to support their propaganda. None of these users or sock puppet IPs were on the other side. Most of them were the very same users who engaged in edit war favouring Samaleks and Aarem. On a dispute that had already took days of talk page discussion two users - Salih Torreslfchero - suddenly appears and agree categorically with what Aarem said until then and Samaleks hails that consensus has been reached !

It could be seen at Malayalam cinema talk page that after the claim of consensus by Aarem, Torreslfchero, Salih, Samaleks, user JK had brought up one more independent news report contradicting that very claim.

Agenda for propaganda

It is known that statements from wiki are plagiarized by many web users in many contexts. From my previous experience with users Aarem (then using another name) and Samaleks their plan seems to be to use this scope for plagiarism to create false propaganda deprecating Kochi.

An example of this was given in Kochi Talk page Discussion (click). There it is seen that Aarem and Samaleks insisted to have a statement that "Kochi was under economic stagnation until 2003" in Kochi page. (They withdrew the statement later as they could not find any evidence). During the period when the statement was there on wiki Kochi page many websites had plagiarized it into their content. One can see this from the examples given by the supervising administrator User:Hiberniantears there quoting different websites. These wiki-plagiarized versions were later cited as "proof for stagnation in Kochi" by the same users Aarem and Samaleks!

A display of the state GDP growth data from Govt of Kerala exposed this falsehood then. The duo Aarem and Samaleks backed out from this statement after a talk supervised by the administrator User:Hiberniantears (involving myself too) back in 2009.

Obsessive deprecation of Kochi

Obsession with deprecating Kochi takes Samaleks too far. See the latest edit by Samaleks in Kochi page. He inserted the picture of a slum into the sub article on Healthcare in Kochi !

Thumb rule for Samaleks and Aarem seems to be that anyone who is not deprecating Kochi is glorifying Kochi.

What is happening in wiki Malayalam cinema page today is an encore of what happened in Kochi page in 2009.

Presently Aarem and Samaleks want to insert Thiruvananthapuram as a hub of Malayalam cinema. They cannot tolerate the Kochi as the hub of Malayalam cinema even if all the newspaper reports from past 7 years unanimously say so. According to Aarem and Samaleks, their propaganda must be accepted at wiki because they can arrange for a few users and sock puppets to support it.

This being the state of wiki Malayalam cinema page, whatever hope I am left with now lies in administrator intervention and a dispute resolution closely supervised by administrators. Thanks, sincerely Prathambhu (talk) 17:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC) Prathambhu (talk) 15:59, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Rdaenot reported by User:Orlady (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. First edit in series, 24 February 2013
  2. 24 February 2013
  3. 25 February 2013 (edit summary: "corrected intro and membership numbers to correctly reflect latest estimate.")
  4. 26 February 2013 - revert by anonymous IP that Rdaenot has acknowledged via edits on the article talk page
  5. 13:25, 27 February 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted membership estimate")
  6. 17:14, 27 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 540947779 by Orlady (talk)")
  7. 28 February 2013 - revert by another anonymous IP that Rdaenot has acknowledged via edits on the article talk page

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [53] (Not a 3RR warning, but rather a link to this page)

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.#Estimated Membership

Comments:
This isn't a 3RR violation (yet), but it's become an edit war, and I am looking for help to bring an end to the dispute without further revert-war escalation. This user has an editing focus on National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. (a Christian denomination) and related topics. S/he objects to including a reliably-sourced membership number in the article that disagrees with the number reported on the denomination's website and has repeatedly removed the number s/he disagrees with. There has been extensive talk page discussion. To get independent opinions in hopes of resolving the matter, I posted requests on the talk page for WikiProject Christianity and the User talk page for a user who is known to me to have a strong editing interest in other Baptist topics. Now three experienced users (counting me) have stated disagreements with Rdaenot's position, but s/he continues to revert. --Orlady (talk) 20:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I just added two anonymous IP edits to the list above. One of these happened after I posted this item. I forgot about the earlier one when I first posted here. Both of these are Rdaenot. Both IPs also posted on the article talk page and Rdaenot acknowledged both of them by adding his signature to their talk page comments. --Orlady (talk) 02:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Without a clear 3RR matter, I think maybe the better option might be to request protection, in this case probably full protection, of the page until and unless the point of dispute is resolved to the satisfaction of policy, guidelines, and at least the broad consensus of the majority of the individuals involved? John Carter (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, this can be closed if 24 hours go by without any further reverts by Rdaenot or his IPs. The discussion on article talk hints that he may have got the point. His use of IPs suggests unsophistication rather than malice. Nonetheless I've warned him about WP:SOCK. EdJohnston (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Major Torp reported by User:KTC (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of news media papabili in the 2013 papal conclave (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: List of papabili in the 2013 papal conclave according to news media coverage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Major Torp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)



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

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

Talk page discussion: Talk:List_of_papabili_in_the_2013_papal_conclave#Wikipedia_guidelines_must_be_respected

Comments:

  • There will need to be a little history merge cleanup as well. KTC (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Already blocked  for a period of 2 days by Ironholds. Rschen7754 20:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Faizan Al-Badri (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Aligarh Muslim University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (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: [65]. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [66], [67], [68]

Comments:
Well, Sir I needed your intervention at Aligarh Muslim University, in this section! Here's the Article's History! The user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom is not behaving normally, he reverted edits of many users for the same content many times, and violated the three revert rule, many days! The dispute is on the List of notable Aligarh Muslim University alumnies! This is the List_of_notable_Aligarh_Muslim_University_alumnies#Heads_of_State_and_Government table that was added to the main article, but this edit was reverted by the user TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom in multiple edits, with the objection of un-referenced content, You can have a view on the page's history! I was also contacted on my Talk page here here. After it, I searched for the references, and found them, put them on the list, and then copied the table on the main Aligarh University Article! But now, he is again reverting others edits, with the objection of "duplication" He says that the table cannot be on two pages, i.e. Aligarh Muslim University and List_of_notable_Aligarh_Muslim_University_alumnies#Heads_of_State_and_Government table at the same time. Please Intervene! I just want to put the table in the main University article, it will not be a copyright violation.-Faizan (talk) 13:18, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I've left a message at TheRedPenOfDoom's talk page. I'm awaiting their response.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I will agree not to edit Aligarh Muslim University per the notice on my page. Does that also include not editing the talk page?-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 01:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your response on your talk page and here. I'm closing this as warned with conditions. You are free to edit the talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:194.66.201.1 reported by William Avery (talk) (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Eastleigh by-election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 194.66.201.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 18:13, 26 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 540634154 by Bondegezou (talk)")
  2. 11:47, 27 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 540908714 by Bondegezou (talk)")
  3. 10:42, 28 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 541196134 by Bondegezou (talk)")
  4. 22:15, 28 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 541329642 by 92.15.56.51 (talk)")
  5. 23:24, 28 February 2013 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 541358881 by William Avery (talk)")
  • Diff of warning: here

William Avery (talk) 08:27, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I've blocked for edit warring and personal attacks. However, the editor has edited with at least one other IP address, so I'm not sure whether the block will be sufficient.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Devilman52 reported by User:Wkharrisjr (Result: 24 hours for both)[edit]

Page: Bartlesville, Oklahoma (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Devilman52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [69]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [73]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [74]

Wkharrisjr (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hoursDarkwind (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Little green rosetta reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Jeffree Star (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 21:01, 28 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541335290 by Insomesia (talk). COI is not a reflection upon the subject. This article is still an unmitigated mess of SPS and needs addressing")
  2. 21:06, 28 February 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541339902 by Insomesia (talk) stop your disruption")
  3. 21:31, 1 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Insomesia (talk): When the article is clean, we remove the tag. (TW)")
  4. 22:12, 1 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541595569 by Insomesia patience. Editors are actively checking this article for sourcing. Once the page is checked, it can come down per consensus. Stop the petty disruption")
  • Diff of warning: here

Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

  • User was warned about edit warring at 1:44, deleted the warning, and continued reverting twice more, gaming the system outside of 24 hours. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
    • User was notified about this discussion but deleted the notice from their talk page.[75] Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Comment I'll try to make the TL;DR version of this. The "edit-war" in question is (was) related to some COI tags being removed that I wished to keep in place until there was consensus to remove them. Viriditas correctly points out that this is outside of the 24 hour 3RR window. What he failed to notice in his apparent glee to report this to 3RR is that the tag was removed[76] by myself 13 minutes before he filed this report, thus negating any 3RR -- gaming or not.

Why did I remove the tag? Not because I was worried about edit-warring but because other users on the talk page responded to my desire to remove the tag. I feel a warning for failure to AGF, hounding, etc is in order for Viriditas. Or a smelly trout slap.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
00:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary, the report I filed above represents a very select sample of your edits during this period. You made a great deal of additional edits, many of which might be classified as reverts. You've been engaging in battlefield behavior across many articles and you've refused to stop edit warring after notices have been placed on your talk page. Viriditas (talk) 00:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Nonsense. There was wide consensus both at the COI Noticeboard and the article's talk page that this article needed a major cleanup. Editors User:OlYeller21 and User:PaleCloudedWhite also made quite a number of edits to bring the article up to snuff. Unfortunatley this 3RR report is disingenuous to say the least. Viriditas has made no contributions to the article or talk page, so what is his interest here other than to poke? I also notice that he failed to report our colleague User:Insomesia on this very same board even though he was restoring the tag against the desires of all of the other involved editors. Why is that? Note to the reviewing admin: I'm not requesting that you block Insomesia for the apparent same transgression. I'm willing to still AGF that he didn't like the tag and felt it should rightly come down.  little green rosetta(talk)
central scrutinizer
 
00:31, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Please avoid distracting from this discussion with an appeal to hypocrisy. The question is, did you make other reverts within the time frame listed above that are not clearly labeled as reverts? While you may continue to abscond your responsibility to avoid edit wars, you're going to need to recognize that I did not revert Insomesia in an aggressive manner, over and over again—twice after you were previously warned; you did. Viriditas (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
You know damn well that lgr only had 4 blocks of edits during that time period. It's possible that other edits in each block were more clearly reverts than the ones you selected, and were not self-reverted, but a block of reverts only counts as one "revert" regardless of how many different sections are reverted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 10:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. I've warned little green rosetta about edit-warring, regardless of whether 3RR is breached. @Viriditas, your rhetoric here is over the top; tone it down in the future, please.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Dimitri Lokhonia reported by User:CliffC (Result: 24h)[edit]

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


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


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

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

Comments:
Dimitri Lokhonia is the president of Bloomex and he would like to have all negative information about the company, no matter how well-sourced, removed from the article. This effort is more or less an annual event, generally before big "flower" holidays like Easter (coming up) and Mother's Day. Talk:Bloomex memorializes many attempts by him or the company's collection of sock/meatpuppets to manage the article since May 2009 and speaks for itself. Thank you, CliffC (talk) 05:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

If you (the reviewing administrator) wouldn't mind, also please reject the pending revision that got caught in the protection. It's messing up watchlists, and the IRC bot :) Plus, there's massive consensus in the form of two deletion discussions that were overwhelming keep and some (little) talkpage discussion. Thanks again, gwickwiretalkediting 05:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hoursDarkwind (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
Hello, right now the article reflects the unfortunate effects of Mr. Lokhonia's edit war; I request that an admin revert it back to its state at day-end 15 February[81]. Thank you, 16:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
It's not often I revert once an article has been locked, but given the history, I've done so.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:175.142.168.165 and User:91.64.185.69 reported by Armbrust The Homunculus (Result: 24 hours for both)[edit]

Page: GeForce 600 Series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 175.142.168.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) & 91.64.185.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

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

Collapse long list of reverts to save space here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Edits of 175.142.168.165
  1. 07:11, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
  2. 07:26, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
  3. 07:33, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
  4. 07:35, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
  5. 07:38, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  6. 07:41, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  7. 07:43, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  8. 07:44, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  9. 07:46, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  10. 07:47, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  11. 07:48, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  12. 07:49, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  13. 07:53, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  14. 07:54, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196")
  15. 07:58, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germany is such a crappy country since it doesn't teach their citizens how to read and comprehand")
  16. 08:02, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  17. 08:04, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  18. 08:08, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  19. 08:09, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  20. 08:12, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  21. 08:14, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  22. 08:16, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  23. 08:18, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  24. 08:20, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  25. 08:22, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  26. 08:23, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  27. 08:25, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
  28. 08:27, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "http://nvidia.custhelp.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3196 Germans can't read and comprehend English")
Edits of 91.64.185.69
  1. 07:24, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541670975 by 175.142.168.165 (talk)")
  2. 07:32, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541672839 by 175.142.168.165 (talk)")
  3. 07:34, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  4. 07:36, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  5. 07:39, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  6. 07:42, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  7. 07:44, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  8. 07:45, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  9. 07:47, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  10. 07:48, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  11. 07:49, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  12. 07:52, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */So a 10 year old GeForce 1 supports DirectX 11.1 too? lol")
  13. 07:54, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */")
  14. 07:57, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Kepler supports the future and unannounced DirectX 20.2 with Direct3D feature level 11_0 LOL")
  15. 08:00, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Malaysian's are very aggressive and love to insult I guess (as we have already found out). And they also beleive that a 15 year old RIVA TNT supports DirectX 11.1 (with direct3D feature level 6_0) LOL")
  16. 08:04, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ This Malaysian beleives that a 15 year old Nvidia RIVA TNT supports DirectX 11.1 and the future DirectX 15,1 (with direct3D feature level 6_0) LOL")
  17. 08:07, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Kepler does not support DirectX 11.1, because it only supports Direct3D 11_0. Nvidia RIVA TNT does support DirectX 11.1, because it only supports Direct3D level 6_0. This Malaysian doesn't get it though. LOL")
  18. 08:09, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Kepler does not support DirectX 11.1 or Direct3D Feature Level 11_1. For the 100000000000th time.")
  19. 08:11, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature level 11_0 and therefore only DirectX 11.0. This Malaysian does not understand and has reverted to insults and an edit war.")
  20. 08:13, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to you both support DirectX 11.1 LOL")
  21. 08:16, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ This Malaysian can't comprehend and understand computer architecture, but he sure knows how to insult. LOL")
  22. 08:17, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to you both support DirectX 11.1 LOL")
  23. 08:19, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to you both support DirectX 11.1 LOL")
  24. 08:21, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to this Malaysian both support DirectX 11.1 LOL")
  25. 08:23, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER FULLY SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to this Malaysian both support DirectX 11.1 LOL")
  26. 08:25, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Microsoft Direct3D Support */ Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER FULLY SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to this Malaysian both support DirectX 11.1 - LO")
  27. 08:26, 2 March 2013 (edit summary: "Nvidia Kepler only supports Direct3D Feature Level 11_0 and Nvidia Riva TNT only supports Direct3D Feature Level 6_0. THEREFORE NEITHER FULLY SUPPORT DIRECTX 11.1. According to this Malaysian both support DirectX 11.1 and EVEN every future DirectX version")

Armbrust The Homunculus 07:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

This keeps going... can be stop this to waste fewer bytes? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 07:49, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
hello? it's been over an hour. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 08:19, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
 Done Blocked both IPs - got severe connection issues with WP. Materialscientist (talk) 09:01, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Longkhj reported by User:Puramyun31 (Result: Blocked for 24 hours for vandalism)[edit]

Page: Kim Hyun-Jung (singer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Longkhj (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [82]

and more...


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [87] Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [88]

Comments: User:Longkhj have repeated the removal of infobox image without explaining a valid reason, so I asked him an explanation of the removal, but the user have ignored it. Also the user have removed infobox image on Korean Wikipedia as well as here. (http://ko.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%EA%B9%80%ED%98%84%EC%A0%95_%28%EA%B0%80%EC%88%98%29&action=history) --Puramyun31 (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)


Because Longkhj has been repeatedly removing an image from an article without giving any reason, and without responding to any attempts at communication, I see this as a case of vandalism, rather than a content dispute. For that reason, I have blocked Longkhj for 24 hours. If this continues after the block expires, we might treat Longkhj as a vandalism-only account, and a longer/indefinite block may be appropriate. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 15:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nick.mon reported by User:RJFF (Result: No action taken, but warning to both editors)[edit]

Pages: Italian general election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Pier Luigi Bersani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nick.mon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Italian general election, 2013

Previous version reverted to: [89]


  • 1st revert: [90] by IP that Nick.mon identified as his (see below)
  • 2nd revert: [91] by same IP
  • 3rd revert: [92] by Nick.mon himself
  • 4th revert: [93]
  • 5th revert: [94]
  • 6th revert: [95]
  • 7th revert: [96] by IP that Nick.mon identified as his
  • 8th revert: [97] by same IP
Pier Luigi Bersani

Previous version reverted to: [98]

  • 1st revert: [99] by IP that Nick.mon identified as his
  • 2nd revert: [100] by same IP
  • 3rd revert: [101] by same IP
  • 4th revert: [102] by Nick.mon himself
  • 5th revert: [103]
  • 6th revert: [104]
  • 7th revert: [105]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [106]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Italian general election, 2013#Bersani's photo

Comments:

Nick.mon was blocked for edit-warring only four days ago. On the second day after the block, he engaged in edit-warring again. --RJFF (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

We are talking about it in the talk page..why my one is an edit-warring and the other aren't?? Excuse me. --Nick.mon (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. Although I understand Nick.mon has some history here, he was not edit-warring alone. User:EeuHP was just as involved a Nick.mon. In addition, both editors were editing over the same picture issue in Pier Luigi Bersani.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:32, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
Of course, both sides are responsible for the edit war equally. So, please consider this a report against User:EeuHP as well. --RJFF (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't do it not to be blocked again...I just edit without logged in. --User:Nick.mon (talk) 15:34, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Nick.moon, I have argued why my picture is more appropriate. You simply tell me that my photo is "worse". And you tell me that I disturbed others users when most of them are Ips. Despite our problems, I think that you and I can agree. I write the proposal in the discussion page.--EeuHP (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

One moment, what is this? [107], — Preceding unsigned comment added by EeuHP (talkcontribs) 15:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, we can agree. Excuse me...I am not an expert of wikipedia and for sing myself I copied the users before me and I insert my name...in that case i forgot to insert my name...but I did it immediatly..Excuse me--Nick.mon (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please do not manipulate this report. If you decide to edit without logging in, you lose your right to keep your IP address secret. It is needed to show that the unregistered edits are identifiable as yours. --RJFF (talk) 15:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Ok excuse me but i think that it is not important to write it. Please. --Nick.mon (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Seems the conflict is solved: [108]. --RJFF (talk) 15:55, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting oppose.svg Not blocked As RJFF notes, the dispute seems to have been resolved so blocking either editors now would be punitive rather than preventative. I will strongly remind both editors that edit warring is never appropriate, even when discussion is taking place. When we encourage editors to discuss an issue, this means that you should stop editing the page until you reach a consensus; continuing to edit war while you discuss is still edit warring and will still get your blocked. ItsZippy (talkcontributions) 16:04, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
I have left personal warnings on both editors' talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Be-with reported by User:Poeticbent (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Vodka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Be-with (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: IP 31.200.181.224


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [116] [117] Warnings by CT Cooper, BarrelProof, Oknazevad and Favonian.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [118]

Comments:

Beginning with Static IP address 31.200.181.224 (talk · contribs), user Be-with (talk ·