Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive217

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Monterrosa reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: )[edit]

Page
Seth MacFarlane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Monterrosa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Consecutive edits made from Jun 19 2013 6:13 PM to Jun 20 2013 12:20 AM
    1. Jun 19 2013 6:13 PM ""
    2. Jun 19 2013 7:20 PM "/* Filmography */"
    3. Jun 20 2013 12:20 AM ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
Warning on users's talk page [1]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
First attempt to talk to this person about the use of rowspans [2]

[3] Monterrosa's response on my talk page


Comments:

Continues to revert and redo edits that are not constructive to the page, refuses to listen to MoS. This user has also been blocked FOUR other times for their disruptive and nonconstructive edits. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please link to where rowspans are discussed in our MoS or accessibility guidelines? I'm not taking a position on the issue, but I'd like to see proof that Monterrosa is violating consensus and that this isn't just a disagreement between you two. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
User:Monterrosa has just returned to Wikipedia after a one-month block. They have engaged in a multi-day edit war at Seth MacFarlane over rowspans and the itemization of voice parts. They have not discussed the issue at Talk:Seth MacFarlane and do not seem to listen to anyone. I've left a warning of a possible indefinite block. I hope that other admins will allow this report to stay open a little longer to see if Monterrosa will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

IP:166.147.69.10 reported by User:Maunus (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Nahua peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: /166.147.69.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]
  5. [8]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]

Comments:

Obvious trolling to insert a photo that is both racist and probably a copyvio into multiple articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Please fix your report. The link to the user is malformed, the link to the article is wrong, you posted links to revisions and not diffs, and you left some of the report fields blank. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. And yes I realize I was editwarring too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Result: Semi two weeks. Three different IPs, including two from the 166.147.* range are edit warring to put back an image that is probably a copyright violation. Once the copyright is settled a normal discussion can resume. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Li3939108 reported by User:Fearofreprisal (Result: )[edit]

Page: Ping Fu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Li3939108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [10]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [11]
  2. [12]
  3. [13]
  4. [14]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [15]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [16]

Comments:Editor appears to be one of the people involved in the cyber-bullying campaign against the subject of the article. This campaign has been ongoing for 5 months. User was recently warned [17] for defamatory posting in this article [18] [19]

Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  1. You should notice the 4 edits are not the same. I add one source in one edits to respond to your request.
  2. User:Fearofreprisal appear to be one of the people involved in the promotion of the memoir.--凡其Fanchy 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Actually, not. I mostly just try to keep the article from being turned into an attack page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrt3366 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No Vio)[edit]

Page: 2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrt3366 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [20]
  2. [21]
  3. [22]
  4. [23]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25][26]

Comments:

Quite simply I am pissed off that this guy will not abide by policy, a tag ought to remain till such a time as the dispute is resolved, he reverts to his favoured version constantly and removes any tag added due to this. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: most of them, if not all, are far from reversals, let alone edit-warring. 24hours? Darkness Shines is pushing an agenda here. As his recent unblock condition he has accepted a voluntary restriction on reverting tags, that's the reason I think he is here. Check the history of the page. I can guarantee that my edits are good-faith contributions and I explained them in talk in detail. BUT DS feels if he thinks the page is non-neutral he can gut it unilaterally without any regard for the opinions of other involved editors. Mr T(Talk?) (New thread?) 18:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
I could have added another few minor edits to this, the problem is you refusal to follow policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm seeing 4 separate edits and this isn't report worthy. I have more than had of you two guys knocking spots off each other. I'm going to leave you separate messages on your talk pages. Spartaz Humbug! 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Giorgi Balakhadze reported by User:Alaexis (Result: )[edit]

Page: Georgian–Armenian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Giorgi Balakhadze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 18:47, 18 June 2013
  2. Revision as of 18:51, 18 June 2013
  3. Revision as of 19:09, 18 June 2013
  4. Revision as of 18:11, 19 June 2013

These constitute a violation of 3RR, there were two more reverts afterwards.

All the reverts consist in replacing a map with a new one, which has NPOV issues.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [30], see further comments by User:Chipmunkdavis

Comments: Since User:Giorgi Balakhadze entered into discussion at the very time I was writing this I do not want him to be blocked but simply reminded of the spirit and letter of Wikipedia principles.

Alæxis¿question? 22:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Chelsea-fan1 reported by User:The Madras (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Didier Drogba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chelsea-fan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560412638

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560782727
  2. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560782981
  3. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560783184
  4. [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560783320

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chelsea-fan1&oldid=560787175

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chelsea-fan1&oldid=560782739

Comments:
I've tried to explain to him that the current infobox picture shows his face a lot more clearly, which is the point of the infobox picture, but he has not listened, and bothered to reply to me. The Madras (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)


Comments:
The current picture is up-to-date and not 5 years old and shows him in a football kit just like the profiles from Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Xavi and Cesc Fàbregas. chelsea-fan1 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Each of you is close to 10RR on this article. Can you explain why admins shouldn't block both of you for violating 3RR? Consider making a suggestion of how to resolve this. Or, promise to stop reverting until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Both editors warned. Whoever reverts the article next is likely to be blocked, unless you can get consensus on Talk for your change. EdJohnston (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ittihadawi reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No action)[edit]

Page
PlayStation 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Ittihadawi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Jun 20 2013 5:24 AM "REVERTED"
  2. Jun 20 2013 5:11 AM "Currency"
  3. Jun 20 2013 5:04 AM "/* PlayStation Camera */ No need to mention price in Canadian Dollars."
  4. Jun 20 2013 5:02 AM "/* Controllers */ No need to mention price of controller in Canadian Dollars (same as US Dollars). If price was mentioned in Canadian/Australian Dollars, why not mention price in other currencies such as the UAE Dirham or Omani Rial?"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Jun 21 2013 9:19 AM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on PlayStation 4. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Jun 21 2013 9:42 AM
Comments:

Disputes the disambiguation of pricing per MOS:CURRENCY; as he does not consider Australian or Canadian pricing to be notable, he constantly removes it, and then removes the USD marks because the article no longer, as a result, talks about any dollars other than American. I, and several others, dispute this because the PS4 is a world-centric article, and not U.S. centric. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Comment To be honest, you're acting like a little bitch again. Yes, that person did violate 3RR rules which is not cool and there was a lil' bit of edit warring BUT that user stopped doing this even BEFORE you made a warning on his/her "Talk Page" and before you immediatelly put a notice here or started a new discussion on article's talk page. In the end the current version of PlayStation 4 does NOT contain any 3rd-world country's (like CA or AU) prices anymore, just as this reported editor was trying to do (although a little bit too aggressively with removal of "US" bit... but he/she stopped). A simple "Talk Page" warning would've sufficed unless the editor would've continued his/her behavior. Not the first time you do this pre-emptive WP:ABF shit and unfortunately not the last...
Also, it appears that you have tried to use this edit warring to push your personal agenda against "price gouging in AU" or some other nonsense, as you have commented upon here and also in Edit Summary here. Quite an opportunistic piece of work you are... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: No action. It seems that the war over the currencies may have stopped. Anyone who continues to revert about the price of the PS4 in different currencies is risking a block, unless they get consensus on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 18:04, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:82.212.85.176 reported by User:Doniago (Result: )[edit]

Page: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.212.85.176 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [31]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [32]
  2. [33]
  3. [34]
  4. [35]
  5. [36]

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

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

Comments:

IP editor was advised that there was a pre-existing Talk page discussion; opted to continue reverting and accuse me of "abuse" despite reversions by at least one other editor. Possible WP:SPA. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Forewarning to all reviewers of this dispute: Doniago himself has actually violated the three-revert rule in the dispute he's reporting, as shown here:
1. [39]
2. [40]
3. [41]
4. [42]
5. [43]
Moreover, this is the second time in the last few days alone that user:Doniago has been involved in utterly inappropriate edit warring behaviors. It was just a few days ago that he was assailing me with these same types of behaviors as he's currently assailing the users at the Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows with. I was the last victim of this user's terribly problematic manner of edit dispute resolution before he took up his behaviors with these editors at this article. In our content dispute, I tried initiating a discussion on the article's talk page, but it was to no avail. Doniago spent the majority of our content dispute jumping around from editor to editor and admin to admin putting me down and stigmatizing me while they all repeatedly told him to cut out all the schemes and concentrate on the content dispute. The user disobeyed these commands repeatedly.
Now it's with somebody else just two days later. User talk:82.212.85.176 and the rest of the users at Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows are all having to deal with exactly what I was assailed with by user Doniago. They all have seemed to initiate a discussion and consensus on the article's talk page, as shown here. As shown in the diffs above, however, Doniago continues his reversions despite general consensus and discussion at the talkpage. Doniago has conveniently left out the diffs in which he has violated the 3RR. Shown in the diffs, he has repeatedly deleted salary-based info that different user's have added in. And User talk:82.212.85.176 seems to have made several attempts to warn Doniago to no avail. His warnings were rudely deleted both times, one time with the edit summary of "bored now" by Doniago (as shown here [44], here [45], here [46], and here [47]) As a further note, AmericanDad86 (talk) 08:39, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • While Doniago did revert four times in a 24 hour period, I believe WP:NOT3RR is applicable here. The reference for the salary claims is sourcing its info from IMDB which is not a reliable source as per WP:RS/IMDB, and therefore violates our BLP policies. Doniago probably should have reported this before the fourth revert, but when it comes to dubious BLP claims we generally cut editors a lot of slack. The additions look like they violate WP:DUE regardless (but that isn't a concern for this board), so at the very least the IP needs to find a more appropriate source before attempting to reintroduce this content. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
  • It should be noted that User:AmericanDad86 has shown marked hostility towards me in the past and has never contributed to this article previously. I have opened an investigation into their conduct at WP:ANI. DonIago (talk) 11:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple IPs (same user) reported by User:Nstrauss (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: PRISM (surveillance program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

  1. 79.21.93.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  2. 87.2.112.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
  3. 95.236.41.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

(Same user seems to keep switching IP addresses, see here.)


Previous version reverted to: [48]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]
  5. [53]
  6. [54]

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: [55], [56], [57], [58],

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Google_backdoor.3F_WT.2A_.3F

Comments:

The user appears to be a newcomer and a non-native English speaker, but he/she seems to willfully refuse to learn and understand the policies and has a very strange sense of what consensus is, as evidenced by the talk page discussion and his/her user talk (87.2.112.110) --Nstrauss (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Another note, I have no reason to believe this person is sockpuppeting, but if he/she is going to be so disruptive from multiple IP addresses then it seems appropriate he/she should be required to create a login (and use it). --Nstrauss (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected one week. The same person seems to be using multiple IPs to edit war on this article. The hopscotch on the talk page suggests that the IPs are the same person throughout. The IP made a promise to edit war about the original research: "i'm not removing that info, until YOU give me a valid reason for that info-removal." EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
To me the "sockpuppery accusation" seems a clumsy pretext to block a correct edit where there's no valid reason to consider it OR. (see the accusations for "offending language here to have another example of clumsy pretexts)
And how can i be a sockpuppet if i *never* denied that i'm the same user in all those IPs ?
Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:PRISM_%28surveillance_program%29&diff=560979791&oldid=560978042 i clearly state that i'm the same user of the other IP. (i say confirm that when i say I'm still waiting (since 18:56). in the very first message posted from that IP)
I demand the removal of protection of the page.
@Nstrauss:
It's unfair (and against the rules) to tell me that "i'm required to register to the website"
all users are equal and i've the right to partecipate without registration.
79.25.98.5 (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
@EdJohnston:
about your misleaging quote about "i'm not removing that info, until YOU give me a valid reason for that info-removal.":
It was a reply to what Nstrauss said. here, he said (about the reason for information removal) he would "not even going to dignify" me "with a reason".
So please dont consider that my sentence as a provocation but ruther as a reply to Nstrauss provocative sentence.
(and btw: YES, if i have to remove an edit i need a valid reason to do that. By now no reasons at all arrived yet)
79.25.98.5 (talk) 12:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
WP:IDHT seems appropriate. I've asked for WP:PC 1 protection for the talk page to allow other IP editors to request edits, and encourage an account. Widefox; talk 16:07, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:198.204.141.208 or User:163.1.214.156 reported by User:Galvan666 (Result: Warnings)[edit]

Page: Ted Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.204.141.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Anon user keeps demanding to use the weasel word "claims" concerning Ted Cruz comments on gun rights. I have pointed out that "claims" is a weasel word that his edit is a commentary not supported by a reliable source. He simply reverts me and says, "Not true." I have attempted to discuss on his talk page, on the article talk page, and in the edit summary.--Galvan666 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Warned User talk:163.1.214.156 and User:Galvan666 that they are both at 3RR and may be blocked if they continue. I don't see how you have any case for sanctions against User talk:198.204.141.208 who seems to be a different person and hasn't edited the article since 17 June. Both sides have a chance to work harder to perfect the wording for Cruz's position on the subject of 'gun rights.' EdJohnston (talk) 04:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Shookallen88 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Fast & Furious 6 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Shookallen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. Jun 22 2013 4:57 PM ""
  2. Jun 22 2013 1:55 PM "Who cares if its linked or not?"
  3. Jun 22 2013 2:22 AM ""
  4. Jun 21 2013 2:05 PM "Undid revision 560861036 by Darkwarriorblake (talk) What difference does it make if its linked twice?"
  5. Jun 21 2013 2:37 AM "Undid revision 560814550 by Darkwarriorblake (talk) it doesn't matter how many over linkings there are."
  6. Jun 20 2013 1:13 PM "Undid revision 560714624 by Darkwarriorblake (talk) nothing wrong with that."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. Jun 22 2013 10:02 AM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Fast & Furious 6. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. Jun 22 2013 10:00 AM "/* Linking */"
  2. Jun 22 2013 2:01 PM "Undid revision 561057263 by Shookallen88 (talk) restored discussion, removing discussion is not an excuse to continue being disruptive"
Comments:

User is warring over content, overlinking two names and refusing to engage in discussion. Argument amounts to "who cares", deleted discussion which I have restored on the articles talk page. Gave a warning which i gave him fair warning he would receive if he continued to edit war, ignored the warning and continues to simply revert even when reverts undo other content. Clearly has no inclination of stopping until he gets his way and is not responding to warnings or discussion so I'm unable to progress situation any further. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:31, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This is the latest progression of the discussion "If you want me to stop then leave as is, linking a name twice isn't nothing to get angry about so leave it as is, Then ill stop undoing." So "if you want me to stop, let me get my way". Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:46, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:GhiathArodaki reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: Indef)[edit]

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

Previous version reverted to: [59]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [60]
  2. [61]
  3. [62]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [63]

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

Comments:
Not a 3RR violation (yet) but persistent edit-warring here and on Steve Jobs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice Move.GhiathArodaki (talk) 20:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Editor has now violated 3RR at Steve Jobs. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 20:58, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
And more is coming if you don't block me , hurry quick .GhiathArodaki (talk) 21:05, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

*Stop x nuvola.svg Blocked indefinitely Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Djflem reported by User:The359 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Port Imperial Street Circuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and Djflem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [64]

Diffs of the Djflem's reverts:

  1. [65]
  2. [66]
  3. [67]
  4. [68]
  5. [69]
  6. [70]
  7. [71]

Diffs of Prisonermonkeys reverts:

  1. [72]
  2. [73]
  3. [74]
  4. [75]
  5. [76]
  6. [77]
  7. [78]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Port Imperial Street Circuit#Promotional runs

Comments:

Note that the information on promotional runs was initially added in March, but the rearranging of the article did not occur until later creating its own section. The blanking and reverting of the section is what I have listed here. Also, this is the second case of edit warring on the same article between the same two users, with a previous edit war ongoing from March to May over photos (example Prisonermonkey diff, example Djflem diff). Users were also warned about edit warring for the earlier fiasco. (diff) Typical editing style of both users is to revert the article while at the same time arguing their case on the talk page. The359 (Talk) 07:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


Sorry for taking so long to getting around to responding to this, but here we go:
I feel there are three real issues here, and they're not really related to content, though content is at the centre of the dispute.
Firstly, I've always edited articles based on their subject. Articles naturally cover several subjects, and so I tend to rank those subjects in order of their importance to the article, and then edit the page to be most consistent with other articles that have the same primary subject. In this case, I feel that the most important subject related to this article is a Formula 1 racing circuit, and so I have tried to edit the article to be consistent with other articles on the same subject, like Circuit de Monaco and Silverstone Circuit. I believe that Djflem is approaching this article the same way, but has sought to make it consistent with articles on construction projects.
Secondly, I object to the paragrph in question because I feel it is compromised by the nature of the event. The paragraph describes drivers sampling the circuit, which is fine in and of itself, because pages like Circuit of the Americas do exactly the same thing. However, the demonstration runs were a part of a paid sponsor event designed to attract attention to the event. The drivers naturally spoke of the circuit in favourable terms so as to promote the race. And although the references supplied are reliable, I feel that the context of the event invalidates the value of the comments. Compare that to the reception section of the Circuit of the Americas page, which gives multiple opinions on specific sections of the circuit in a forum that is not paid for by a sponsor. However, Djflem disagrees with this, because the sources supplie are reliable, and so he feels that the context behind them does no matter at all.
Finally, and this is probably the most-pressing issue, is the matter of where the burden of responsibility to establish a consensus lies. I believe that, because no other page related to Formula 1 circuit contains a "Demo runs" section, Djflem's edits represent a major departure from the established editing practices on circuit pages, and that he therefore needs to demonstrate a consensus in favour of such a departure. On the other hand, Djflem feels that because the sources he has supplied are reliable, a consensus is needed to remove that content.
I don't deny that I have edit-warred, but there has been virtually no third-party support in resolving the issue. I have tried to get other editors into the debate, but have received no help. And despite his attempts to settle the edit-warring through the administrators, The359 has done very little to prevent the problem to begin with. Previous experience in dealing with Djflem has shown me that ignoring his disruptive edits only enables him, as he seems to be under the impression that bold edits are somehow immune from further editing until a consensus is proven. This would not normally be an issue, but it is a hallmark of a serial sockpuppeteer who has haunted the Formula 1 pages in the past (not that I believe Djflem is another sock as he has been around for some time; it's just a behaviour I have recognised as being consistent with anthoer disruptive editor). Prisonermonkeys (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Michael Zeev reported by User:Nableezy (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Yasser Arafat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 05:12, 22 June 2013 (edit summary: "He was born in Cairo, Egypt, what it implies he was an Arab immigrant in Palestine.")
  2. 10:58, 22 June 2013 (edit summary: "Immigration is the movement of people into another country or region to which they are not native in order to settle there. He never "came back" because he was born in Cairo, not Palestine.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]

Comments:
Both reverts of this. Article is under 1RR, and the user has violated the rule several times, including recently at Palestinian prisoners in Israel, I just never got around to reporting it. nableezy - 16:01, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I didn't know biographies are under 1RR restriction. You could have warned me after my second revert (so I can "undo" myself). And even your late warning was made just one minute before you filled this report. I don't understand why you keep insisting on removing a proper category. Article is about Yasser Arafat, not his parents. Arafat was born in Cairo and moved to Jerusalem when he was a child. He was born in Egypt, therefore he immigrated to Palestine. Do you get it? It's very simple. We don't need a reference saying "he was an immigrant", but a source saying he was born in Cairo, Egypt. For example, Shimon Peres is also an immigrant because he was born in Poland and moved to Israel when he was a kid.--Michael Zeev (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
Michael Zeev didn't ignore is familiar with all the rules as proven by the summary diff of this 20th edit on wikipedia and despite he denied this : [81]. Pluto2012 (talk) 17:00, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

There is a very large banner on Talk:Yasser Arafat. It makes explicitly clear the article is under 1RR. And I dont plan in getting into the content argument here except to say that you do in fact need a source, and calling a Palestinian an immigrant to Palestine is rather foolish. But thats a discussion for the talk page, what belongs here is that you've been warned about the 1RR previously ([82]), and that you continue to violate it. Pluto warned you about the 1RR ([83]) four hours prior to my revert and subsequent report. You declined to self-revert the last time I warned you about the violation as well. nableezy - 17:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Arafat, Palestinian or not, was born in Cairo, not in Palestine. Check the article. On the other hand, how can I decline anything if you reverted my last edition before posting a warning message in my talk page? You didn't give me the chance.--Michael Zeev (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You're POV pushing. Arafat was sent back to his deceased mother's relatives when a very young child. You listed him for this as a (Cairene) 'immigrant' to Mandatory Palestine, where both his mother and father were born. A moment's thought should have told you kiddies don't immigrate. In this case he was despatched back to his parent's homeland, and his mother's city, Jerusalem. If your parents are Israeli, and you happen to be born while they are working abroad, and you return for your bar-mitzvah, you don't return as an 'immigrant'. The word has completely different connotations, including the adoption of a new identity, nationality or homeland. Virtually every other edit you make is question-begging, like this. Nishidani (talk) 19:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
You should read more carefully. I said the last time I warned you, that being User_talk:Michael_Zeev#1rr. You still haven't self-reverted at Palestinian prisoners in Israel. nableezy - 17:51, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

After this report was made, the user also violated the 1RR at Israel. While I dont dispute the edits should be reverted, they were not vandalism and as such are not exempt from the 1RR. The reverts are [84] and [85]. So while an edit warring report for violating the 1RR is open, the user again violates the 1RR. nableezy - 20:25, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

This edit (replacing Jerusalem with "Tel abib") was clear vandalism from a vandalism-only created account. However, I will be more careful next time. I will strictly obey 1RR from now on.--Michael Zeev (talk) 22:32, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:The Rahul Jain reported by User:Neo. (Result: No action here)[edit]

Page: User talk:Rahul RJ Jain (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Rahul Jain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) As per this policy user should not blank or remove sockpuppetry related notices but user has engaged in edit war. Pls see this [86] [87] [88] [89] neo (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:ChrisAnorthosis reported by User:Argento1985 (Result: )[edit]

Page: Anorthosis Famagusta FC (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ChrisAnorthosis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [[90]], link [[91]]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [[92]]
  2. [[93]]
  3. [[94]]
  4. [[95]]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: being sent here by User:Darkwind from WP:AIAV. I've warned the user for vandalism, it makes no sense to me why shall i report him again in here, the whole mass edits he have done are [on the history of this page] I've noticed the warning you are giving here if the user hasnt been warned but notices and warnings given similar to this and relating it given to his User:ChrisAnorthosis talk page]] short example of last warning is -> "This is your only warning; if you make personal attacks on other people again, as you did at User:Argento1985, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Action and Intention to attack after 4th warning: [2] (Argento1985) 19:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)"

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

Comments:
Sorry for disturbing you dear admins, the User:Darkwind sent me here, from WP:AIAV and i'm suppose to generate the whole situation now to make a complain for editing war. To me doesnt look like an edit war at most, there are 2 reverts and meaning less edits and additions by the user im complaining to. Furthermore this user tried to offend me on my userpage using greeklish characters and leaving comments un-signed. I hope you can guide me who can i avoid such conflicts. I'm dedicating much of my freetime to contribute and i want to be useful and not useless to the community (such as defacing my contribution by this user). furthermore my talkpage being attack by this user [[96]] (Argento1985) 12:40, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User talk:163.1.214.156 or User:78.144.236.198 or User:198.204.141.208 reported by User:Galvan666 (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Ted Cruz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 163.1.214.156 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 78.144.236.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 198.204.141.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff as of 00:58, 20 June 2013
  2. diff as of 20:35, 20 June 2013
  3. diff as of 23:10, 21 June 2013
  4. diff as of 08:15, 22 June 2013
  5. diff as of 10:06, 23 June 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] link to 1st warning which was ineffective apparently
link to 2nd warning which hopefully will be more effective

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

Comments: As I stated in the previous complaint about edit warring on this Administrators' Noticeboard, Anon user keeps demanding to use the weasel word "claims" concerning Ted Cruz comments on gun rights. I have pointed out that "claims" is a weasel word that his edit is a commentary not supported by a reliable source. He simply reverts me and says, "Not true." I have attempted to discuss on his talk page, on the article talk page, and in the edit summary.

Now, the last complaint on this board resulted in me getting a warning from the admin, who claimed that me listing various IP addresses as the source of this edit warring was not appropriate. All of these IP addresses are making the exact same edit and they are making comments to me as if they are same person. The most recent edit from IP 78.144.236.198 refers back to the incorrect comments of IP 163.1.214.156 to justify his revert. This case is not only an "edit war" but it is an example of someone using different IP addresses to jump in and out of the article in sockpuppet manner.--Galvan666 (talk) 18:01, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. The common language used by the various IPs is just too much for a coincidence and we have to assume socking or offsite coordination. See the protection log for more background. EdJohnston (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Aprock reported by User:BlackHades (Result: )[edit]

Page: Talk:Race and genetics (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aprock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [97]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [98]
  2. [99]
  3. [100]
  4. [101]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [102] [103]

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

Comments:

User:Aprock previously edit warred and removed Dawkins' position from the Race and genetics article 6 times.[105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110]

So I tried to work with Aprock on an edit he would deem satisfactory.[111] When Aprock refused to assist toward an edit, yet continued to edit war and remove any version of Dawkins' position to the article that anyone tried to put, I filed for a dispute resolution here.[112] Our mediator during Dispute Resolution was User:Guy Macon. He asked us to try to see the debate from the other person's point of view and write what is the best reason for believing the position that opposes yours.[113] I participated in Guy Macon's request while Aprock refused to do so.[114] As Guy Macon couldn't help us come to an agreement, he suggested that we should start a RfC and that the results of the RfC would be final and the losing party has to accept the results.[115] I drafted an RfC on my sandbox and requested all editors to take a look at it and welcomed all comments and suggestions for improvement as I wanted to make the RfC as neutral as possible.[116] I never heard from Aprock.

3 days later, I start the RfC here.[117] After 4 different editors voted to keep Dawkins in the article and 0 editors voting to remove Dawkins from the article, Aprock then decides he's going to insert this POV line into the RfC to try to “turn the tide” and makes 4 reverts to try to keep it there.[118][119][120][121] I tried to explain to Aprock that his edit on the RfC is incredibly POV.[122] He never responded to my comments and instead just continued to revert. And despite Aprock's best efforts to taint the RfC, 2 more people voted to keep Dawkins in the article while Aprock's POV edit was up.[123] [124] There is now currently 6 votes to keep Dawkins in the article and 0 votes to remove Dawkins from the article.

These results appear difficult for Aprock to accept. He previously performed 6 reverts to try to remove Dawkins from the article and now performed 4 reverts to try to put a POV line into the RfC. Aprock's behavior has become incredibly disruptive.

note: The first diff listed is not a revert. aprock (talk) 04:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment. As Aprock states, the first diff was not a reversion. It was the addition of new content to an article talk page.

The article Race and genetics is covered by WP:ARBR&I and BlackHades has already been blocked one week for disruption in that area. (He suggested that Dougweller was a sockpuppet/meatpuppet of KillerChihuahua and made a frivolous SPI report which was immediately deleted.) Aprock added text to clarify a third alternative in an RfC formulated by BlackHades. During a previous session on DRN, mediated by Guy Macon, some parties had talked past each other about the issue under discussion (the degree of acceptance of the concept of race, and in particular whether a popular book by Richard Dawkins contained any relevant discussion of the matter). Aprock stated that BlackHades' phrasing of the RfC did not properly represent all available options.[125] He then amplified a third option by adding a quote from the book.[126]

BlackHades removed this content from the talk page, despite WP:TPG:

  1. First removal by BlackHades: [127] Removed misleading and irrelevant text
  2. Second removal by BlackHades: [128] At least respond to my comments
  3. Thirs removal by BlackHades: [129] You're seriously going to edit war over this? Without even ever addressing anything I wrote?

Aprock has restored his own additions to the talk page, which I assime were added to assist others. BlackHades should not be editing his comments. In addition he has attempted to move a relevant discussion with Maunus to user talk:Maunus.[130] This seems to be disruptive editing. BlackHades has stated above that the RfC will be a simple vote count. He seems to be trying to affect its outcome by removing comments or discussions which do not favour his own point of view. He is the main person edit warring. When warned by Aprock on his talk page about 3RR, he made this response:[131] Don't need a 3RR warning from someone that has already violated it.

The last statement is incorrect as BlackHades was the person removing Aprock's comments. Aprock has restored his own addition three times, so has not broken 3RR. It is BlackHades who has been edit warring and going to great lengths to remove comments or suppress discussions with which he disagrees. If anywhere, it might be appropriate to make a report at WP:AE since the problems go beyond edit warring. Mathsci (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Mathsci, you're still following me and still throwing false accusations everywhere? Falsely accusing me on sockpuppetry?[132] and tag teaming[133]were not enough? Honestly, why do you feel the need to follow and make false accusations toward countless editors from race related articles?
Removing comments or discussions? What comment or discussion was removed? I responded to Maunus on his talk page because the topic was no longer about the RfC and was cluttering up space around the RfC. Maunus and I were discussing the broader view of race as it relates to the scientific circles not whether or not Dawkins should be included in the article which is what the RfC is ACTUALLY about. Did you forget that Maunus already stated that he supported inclusion of Dawkins' position in regards to the RfC here?[134] FUNNY that you forgot to mention that. You make it sound like Maunus was building a case in discussion to exclude Dawkins from the article and I'm trying to hide it. When in reality, Maunus has already expressed his position that Dawkins should be included and we were just having a broader discussion on race. Not to mention I received a barnstar for my discussion with Maunus[135] during talk. Yeah it reeeeally looks like I'm trying to hide something huh? Nice try Mathsci but really..come on.
My revert on Aprock was not a talk page discussion. Aprock was trying to insert a POV line into an RfC 4 times. Note that I fully welcomed and encouraged Aprock and others in helping draft a RfC several days before I started the RfC. Did Aprock ever contact me? No. Did Aprock make any changes the day RfC was started? No. He only put in his POV line AFTER 4 editors already expressed their position that Dawkins should be included. Since then 2 more editors expressed their position to keep Dawkins in the article even while Aprock's POV edit on the RfC was up.
How about the fact that Aprock previously edit warred to remove Dawkins from the article 6 TIMES from 4 different editors? I can't help but notice you completely avoided that. You also completely avoided the fact that Aprock refused to participate and listen to Guy Macon's instructions during Dispute Resolution. Or the fact that I tried to engage Aprock about his POV edit on the RfC, which Aprock refused to give any response back to. Mathsci, I really mean this in the most sincere way possible, you need a new hobby that doesn't involve following The Devil's Advocate, Akuri, me around everywhere just waiting to make wild and ridiculous accusations against us. BlackHades (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Akuri was indefinitely blocked by arbcom over 2 weeks ago with talk page access revoked. That account, or any of the other matters mentioned above, has no relevance here. BlackHades is continuing to misrepresent the first edit of Aprock as a revert, when it involved the addition of completely new material. Mathsci (talk) 10:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Background to RfC. Since EdJohnston has been trying to determine the background to the RfC, I have tried here to determine the sequence of events leading up to its posting; in particular whether due care had been taken that the formulation was agreed to by all parties involved in the preceding dispute resolution process. The DR process was abandoned at WP:DRN. While parties were still divided on how or whether passages from Dawkins' book should be referred to in the article, BlackHades created his RfC in user space. After he had completed what was the final draft on 11 June, he indicated on 12 June at DRN that he intended to start an RfC.[136] On 13 June he mentioned that the draft was already prepared in his user space and that anybody could comment on it.[137] It is not clear whether anybody noticed that edit, since no parties involved in the DRN commented. The mediator Guy Macon did comment just before closing the DR process, "I would point out to the other participants that giving BlackHades advice on the wording of the RfC is encouraged; it can be difficult to describe a position you disagree with without bias creeping in, and input from those who hold that position can be helpful. An unbiased description of both positions benefits everyone. The final decision on wording lies with the person who writes up the RfC, but with the best RfCs you cannot tell which side wrote it until they post their arguments among the rest of the comments." BlackHades did not subsequently check that the other parties, in particular those who had been in disagreement with him, were comfortable with his formulation/wording of the RfC. He posted the RfC on 16 June.[138] The parties involved on the DRN were BlackHades, The Devil's Advocate, ArtifexMayhem, Aprock and 84.61.181.253. BlackHades posted notifications to 15 user talk pages about the RfC as well as a general notice on WP:NPOVN.[139] Mathsci (talk) 19:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Delicious carbuncle reported by User:Harold O'Brian (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: Boot fetishism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [140]
  2. [141]
  3. [142]

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

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

Comments:

This page was redirected to another page before, due to a lack of reliable sources. I have added sources for the information now, but Delicious carbuncle thinks it is not enough, claiming the other page is a "main article" (which it of course is not) to the article in question. Please stop Delicious carbuncle from these actions. Harold O'Brian (talk) 16:13, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Harold O'Brian, who has aremarkable knowledge of wiki markup and rules for a "new" user, has removed the redirect for times now ([144], [145], [146], & [147]). His attempts to "improve" the article have amounted to adding unsourced material and pop culture trivia about The Avengers (TV series). If someone wants to find authoritative sources that make the case for boot fetishism to be be a separate thing from shoe fetishism, I have no objection. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:30, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I can't see how references to a printed book makes the added material "unsourced". I have been to other wikis before, if you must know. Harold O'Brian (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
What are the sources for this? If you don't mind me asking, which wikis use the same guidelines, terms, and reporting mechanisms as WP? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
I added a source in this edit, which is still in the page if you read it right now. The images already existed in other pages in Wikipedia. I have heard about this 3 times rule before (Wikipedia and its rules are not unheard of outside Wikipedia) and when I found this page it was really easy to follow the guideline to make a report. Harold O'Brian (talk) 22:04, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
That seems a little implausible, but I'm not known for my displays of good faith where the actions suggest otherwise. I'm sure someone will be along shortly to block me, since I've restored the redirect after seeing the sources you added. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: Both parties have broken the WP:3RR rule. Article fully protected five days. Is it too much to expect the editors to discuss the matter at Talk:Shoe fetishism in the mean time? Or, you could consider asking for opinions at WP:SEX which I'm sure will be a source of good ideas. This topic lends itself to many puns which I am trying to avoid here. EdJohnston (talk) 01:56, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I see no point in discussing this at Talk:Shoe fetishism, since that page has nothing to do with the subject at hand. A discussion at Talk:Boot fetishism could be useful. Harold O'Brian (talk) 19:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Happy Evil Dude reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: )[edit]

Page: Mandy Moore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Happy Evil Dude (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [148] (this version restores previously deleted content, but in different form)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [149]
  2. [150]
  3. [151]
  4. [152]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [153]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154] (Note that first three listed reverts introduced unsourced content regarding "relationships," plain BLP violations that call for no extended discussion beyond clear edit summaries. Edit summary accompanying third revert shows Happy Evil Dude was aware of BLP sourcing requirements and chose to disregard them.)

Comments: Happy Evil Dude is repeatedly adding unsourced or inadequately sourced content to various BLPs of female celebrities, adding typical gossip about "relationships" and laundry lists of "dating" partners to articles which have been cleared of such unencyclopedic content by other editors. They were warned about BLP sourcing requirements by another editor about ten days ago.([155], particularly Bishonen's comment citing WP:BLP) Nevertheless, they resumed adding such content, without sourcing, last night, with one revert accompanied by this abusive comment in an edit summary: Instead of removing updates like an idiot, why don't you find the sources yourself and add them, genius? They then added the content back this morning, with some acceptable and some inappropriate sourcing. They have made no effort to discuss or to cite consensus (which I believe is sufficiently shown by the uncontroversial removal of such gossip in the past. I don't see this behavior stopping without formal intervention.Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I reverted the page to the last stable version removing the disputed material until a consensus is formed regarding the material. Dusti*poke* 02:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Alcastilloru reported by User:RJFF (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page: Popular Will (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Movement for Socialism – Political Instrument for the Sovereignty of the Peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alcastilloru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Popular Will

Previous version reverted to: [156]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [157] (by IP 190.75.114.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) whose editing pattern is very similar to the one of Alcastilloru and who edits exactly the same pages)
  2. [158] (by IP 190.75.114.11)
  3. [159]
  4. [160]
Movement for Socialism

Previous version reverted to: [161]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [162]
  2. [163]
  3. [164]
  4. [165]
  5. [166]
  6. [167]
  7. [168] (by IP 190.75.114.11)
  8. [169] (by IP 190.75.114.11)
  9. [170]
  10. [171]

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

Alcastilloru has actually used the talk page (here) earlier this month. But when he/she did not meet with consensus, he/she resumed edit warring.

Comments:

Alcastilloru has not breached the 3 reverts rule in 24 hours, but engages in extreme long-term edit-warring. --RJFF (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Warned. User has made no edits since 23 June so this report could be archived by the bot before he returns. If the user or his IP does come back and continue to revert let me know because a block for long-term warring on the Movement article would be justified (Nine reverts of the same thing since June 2). Assuming that he doesn't pick up on the very polite warning on his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:50.134.168.16 reported by User:Apokryltaros (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Talk:Evolution (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.134.168.16 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [173]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [174]
  2. [175]
  3. [176]
  4. [177]

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

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

Comments:
Anonymous editor has been insistent on using Talk:Evolution as a forum to disseminate and advertise its misunderstanding and deliberate refusal to understand "evolution theory versus fact," and has ignored all warnings given to it.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

This isn't really the appropriate venue, but I've issued a block to get the message across. The anon is not "edit warring", they are just being disruptive. I'll keep an eye on them, but for things like this just flag down an admin or post to AN/I. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:22 Male Cali reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Pending)[edit]

Page: War in Afghanistan (2001–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 22 Male Cali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [178]
  2. [179]
  3. [180]
  4. [181]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [182][183]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [184]

Comments:
What is this? User:Darkness Shines violated 3 reverts. He/she has dozens of blocks for similar behaviour [185]

  • Administrator's note: I think this one belongs at ANI. Please see the thread there.--v/r - TP 20:14, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Best in the world 56 reported by User:Visuunome (Result: )[edit]

Page
Ajith kumar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Best in the world 56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user ·