Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive222

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Picture Master reported by User:GimliDotNet (Result: 2 x 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Gimli (Middle-earth) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Picture Master (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported
GimliDotNet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570685474 by Intothatdarkness (talk) - Adding image is not vandalizing. If you don't like it, take it to talk. XD"
  2. 01:43, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570543728 Someone please block this "GimliDotNet" guy! He insists on vandalizing the article!"
  3. Consecutive edits made from 01:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC) to 02:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
    1. 01:57, 28 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570356138 by GimliDotNet (talk)"
    2. 02:00, 28 August 2013 (UTC) "Stop with the vandalism! It's the only picture in the public domain of the article. Your personal opinion about the quality of the picture is not important!"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:30, 28 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Vandalism */ new section"
  2. 05:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Vandalism again */ new section"
  3. 05:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Vandalism again */"
  4. 15:36, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Vandalism */ new section"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Me too, user is pushing fan-art and accusing others of vandalism for reverting it.

I fully expect consequences to as I have 'lost it' which I will accept GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:42, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Seems I can't report myself, please count this as a report for me too. Heads gone, ban probably do my blood pressure good. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 15:45, 29 August 2013 (UTC)


Great, let's see who is vandalizing!

Adding low-quality art and then accusing others of vandalism when they remove it isn't a good way to go about things. User Picture Master doesn't seem inclined to discuss additions either on article talk pages or on their talk page. Intothatdarkness 16:07, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Intothatdarkness already mentioned in this revision that bold editing is not vandalism. Unencyclopedic fan-art does not contribute anything to Wikipedia articles, but edit warring about its removal doesn't help either. As a result, both involved editors have been given 24 hours to contemplate. After that, Picture Master should seek consensus at the article talk page for inclusion of the image. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:ZYXW9876 reported by User:Macrakis (Result: Already blocked )[edit]

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

User being reported: ZYXW9876 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 12:02, 29 August 2013 (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")
  2. 12:51, 29 August 2013 (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")
  3. 13:25, 29 August 2013 (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")
  4. 14:13, 29 August 2013 (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")
  5. 17:07, 29 August 2013 (edit summary: "/* Terminology */")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: long discussion on Talk page

Comments: Persistently re-adds 'from Slavic glory' to article, despite multiple Edit Warring, RS, and 3RR warnings in Talk:Slave and User talk:ZYXW9876. Has done this in multiple 24-hour periods.

Already blocked per report farther up the page. Acroterion (talk) 17:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Leoxaq reported by User:EvergreenFir (Result: 31h)[edit]

Page: Template:LGBT in Japan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Leoxaq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

[2]

Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [4]
  2. [5]
  3. [6]
  4. [7]
  5. [8]
  6. [9]
  7. [10]
  8. [11]
  9. [12]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Leoxaq#Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [13]

Comments:
Multiple users disagree with this one user's edits. Talk page is full of discussion of the issue, yet user keeps editing despite lack of consensus. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
I show evidence written, "Yaoi is unrelated to LGBT". And I edit it. Reference:Template talk:LGBT in Japan#Do not include yaoi--Leoxaq (talk) 18:39, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
User in question only provided one single source for their multiple assertions regarding yaoi, all of which the other editors regarded as inconsequential to whether it is or is not an LGBT-relevant topic. User in question continued to harp on how yaoi is only relevant to "hetero women" (that it is only written by heterosexual women for heterosexual women to see themselves in "beautiful men"), despite its very name ("yaoi") being identified in both Japan and non-Japanese territories by publishers as containing content of a homosexual nature. At some point, things broke down, and user in question stuck rhetorically to saying the same thing over and over again like a stuck record, no matter what we said to the contrary. User disputed it on my talk page and on template talk page as well. Plenty of talk was had, none of it bearing fruit. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 23:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - 31 hours for long-term edit warring. User:Leoxaq has removed the word Yaoi from the article ten times since 23 August. He keeps asserting he is correct, but nobody on the talk page supports his changes. EdJohnston (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:128.151.71.18 reported by User:ElKevbo (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Western Carolina University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 128.151.71.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Sorry but I'm not going to spend a lot of time on such an obvious case of edit warring. The editor has been warned and the edit history of the article tells the whole story. Please let me know if you have any questions. ElKevbo (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected six months. One or more IPs have been trying to force the addition of John Allen Bennett's name as a notable alumnus since March. Whoever this alumnus might be, he doesn't yet have a Wikipedia article. A short block seems unlikely to help, so it is logical to do semiprotection. Nobody has offered any reasoning on the talk page as to why his name should be included. EdJohnston (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:39.45.79.177 reported by User:EuroCarGT (Result: Full Protect: 2 days)[edit]

Page
2013–14 Liverpool F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
39.45.79.177 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 20:19, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "There are reliable sources for assists"
  2. 20:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570718547 by Eyesnore (talk)"
  3. 20:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570718133 by Qed237 (talk)"
  4. 19:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570713384 by Qed237 (talk) Even EPL official site has assist data. If you think it's not right doesn't make it wrong."
  5. 19:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570654548 by Qed237 (talk) There is assist data on every page. Live with it."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Warning on talk page. ///EuroCarGT 20:23, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:EuroCarGT, User:Eyesnore, and User:Qed237 are all guilty of edit warring in this case. This was handled improperly by all of them. This is not an exception to 3RR. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:35, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. The contested changes are no different than most of the other content in the page. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 20:52, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
There has been consensus on WT:FOOTY to remove assist-tables. As example this and this i can find at the moment withour even looking that hard. QED237 (talk) 20:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Clear consensus does not appear to exist in that discussion. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 22:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Cantaloupe2 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: )[edit]

Page: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cantaloupe2 (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. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]
  4. [17]
  5. [18]
  6. [19]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20] [21]

Extensive discussion about said edits at WT:COI by multiple editors. It seems likely others at pages Cantaloupe2 has recently edited would characterize this editor's behavior as edit warring as well.

Comments:

At the risk of being accused of WP:FORUMSHOP, previously made mention of this at WP:ANI but so far there has been no action, despite multiple others chiming in from other interactions with this user. Not exactly 3RR, and perhaps not even explicitly edit warring, as they tend to jump around somewhat to different, related issues and viewpoints, but interactions with other editors are almost uniformly hostile, accusatory, and demonstrate a complete disregard for consensus building. -- UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 02:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)


User has also been rather disruptive to the point of warring on WinCo Foods. They misuse the COI template when the issue was bias (see Talk:WinCo_Foods). EvergreenFir (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I had a WP:AGF belief that different sections would be considered separate parts. On the COI guideline, I edited parts in chunks, then move onto other chunks, so that there's enough time for the previous section to develop comment rather than making all the changes at once. I'm disputing the complainant's contention of "demonstrate a complete disregard for consensus building". I have made significant attempt to explain edits, provided definition of consensus, from wiki and from outside wiki pages and requested that the user provide premises t assertions. If I should have made all the changes to one page in one big section, then I will do so going forward. I feel that the complainant had been evasive in following through with their contentions as when asked for follow up, they bring up other contentions before addressing the response.Cantaloupe2 (talk) 03:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Cybordog reported by User:Owain.davies (Result: 72 hours)[edit]

Pages: Caduceus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Caduceus as a symbol of medicine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cybordog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [22]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [23]
  2. [24]
  3. [25]
  4. [26]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User talk page (most discussion here)
Article page

Talk:Caduceus_as_a_symbol_of_medicine

Comments:

This is a thread about edit warring betweeen myself and Cybordog, rather than 3RR, because of the length of time between reversions.

This user has been on on Wikipedia since May 2012, and only edits two articles (Caduceus and Caduceus as a symbol of medicine) in order to insert their view that "its use remains and is well accepted as an appropriate symbol to signify a healthcare entity" as well as some other assertions around a biblical origin (although he has not done the latter since last year). The article is well cited with academic references which point to the exact opposite, and we have not been able to find a single credible reference to support that position. I have repeatedly asked Cybordog to provide references, and he has provided some esoteric websites, and will not accept that these are not reliable.

I (and some others) have made changes to try and reflect some of the edits whilst not giving WP:UNDUE to what amounts to a fringe theory. This is not the first time the same discussion has been had about this topic, and some people feel quite strongly that this symbol is appropriate, normally because that is what they use. However, there are more than a dozen reliable sources which disagree with them, and none that agree.

Cybordog won't engage properly (and has not responded at all to my recent approaches, including not adding edit summaries) and this was an occasional annoyance, but recently he has been appearing every few days to revert to his preferred, uncited wording.

I would be grateful if you could look at appropriate action, such as page protection, which would resolve this, as I have no desire to continue an edit war. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 08:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - 72 hours for long-term edit warring. This editor's sole purpose for being on Wikipedia is to change our caduceus-related articles to reflect his own unsourced opinions. Past discussions with him have had no effect. Read User talk:Cybordog if you were hoping that any other verdict is possible. EdJohnston (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Thargor Orlando reported by User:Groupuscule (Result: )[edit]

Page: Riki Ott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Thargor Orlando (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Beagel's version from 9 July 2013 (diff)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. diff
  2. diff
  3. diff
  4. diff
  5. diff
  6. diff
  7. additional edit

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1 2 3

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above, plus: diff

Comments:

Part of the problem seems to be that Thargor Orlando is very determined to delete links from the sources Truthout and Op Ed News, despite having reached no consensus on the quality of these sources. At Riki Ott, Thargor insisted that Truthout was not reliable, despite prior agreement from two editors (groupuscule & Petrarchan47 who had already been working on the article) that it was contextually appropriate. Thargor was so insistent that they deleted the citation of Truthout seven times.

A similar conflict is now shaping up at COINTELPRO, where Thargor Orlando has now three times deleted virtually all of the external links: 1 2 3

Thargor Orlando has also disregarded suggestions that they refrain from this mass targeting of sources: 1 2.

From their talk page, it can be seen that they are inappropriately tagging pages for procedural deletion: 1 2

They are making it clear on their talk page that they refuse to discuss the overall issue: 1 2

In conclusion, I would really appreciate some recognition from the community—and some help conveying to Thargor Orlando—that these deletions of links, citations, and whole pages are not appropriate. The repetitive deletions, enacted against consensus of editors who have already been collaborating on the article, is particularly egregious. But the whole pattern needs to be questioned; as I told Thargor Orlando on their talk page, no one should have to be responsible for stalking an individual editors' contributions in order to (ineffectively) reverse their systematic deletions. Please forgive any errors I have made in this format—it's my first time submitting a report of this type. Thanks everybody for reading. groupuscule (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

First, this really doesn't belong here. Second, I have maybe two reverts over the last 24 hours at one article he complains about, and none in the last 4 days at the other, with both actually improving remaining links. groupuscule can complain all he wants about my improving sources in the articles, but it generally hasn't been an issue with anyone, with a handful of exceptions that I have yet to pursue further. Third, I don't need consensus to remove links and improve links: as part of the cycle of editing, we discuss it at talk if there's a continuing issue. We have policies and guidelines for external links, and groupuscule, as I have told him numerous times, is free to discuss any issues he has with them at the talk page. Conversation is ongoing at both pages, as it should be. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Paul 012 reported by User:WPPilot (Result: )[edit]

  • Pages:
Bangkok (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and
Si Lom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have already posted a request for admin help, this is frustrating. I at this moment am standing in Silom Thailand and I have come here to do photos of the area to update the photos of the local areas. I am a professional and have not really had this happen in the past at all yet I now seem to have a user that does not agree that I am in Silom Thailand and claims that my photos of Silom Thailand are not photos of the area that I am in, right now. I for 30 years have been a professional photographer and have been published in hundreds of publications, yet this user seems to OWN the Wiki on the area and summarily removes my photos. Si Lom shows the Silom area, as well as some other areas of Bangkok yet this user seems to know more about the area then my personal location can demonstrate. He continues to remove my photo, taken last night in Silom and he claims that my photo is not what I KNOW it is, Si Lom Thailand. I have really tried to reach out to him and he has become more aggressive in removing my photos of the local area to replace them with photos of cars on streets. The photo he demands is used to show this area could be anywhere in Thailand really yet it would seem that this has I regret turned into a edit war, regardless of reality or my current location. The user seems to think he controls any page related to Bangkok, and has already tried to replace my professional photos with photos of the sky and cars on a road, insisting that my photo is not what I know it is as I am standing here right now. Common sense does not seem to matter, and he simply reverts my contrib's with poor quality photos. Can I please get some assistance with this matter? I have posted a request on the Admin help page and another admin also agrees that professional photographs, as he seems to think he owns the pages that I have contributed to HELP. --WPPilot 15:48, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has breached 3RR here, though I find WPPilot's notion that an I alone am waging an edit war against him and everyone else rather perplexing. Please feel free to peruse the discussion at Talk:Bangkok#Bangkok City Scape, Talk:Si Lom#August 2013 as well as the histories of both pages. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:03, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
After contributing thousands of dollars over years to obtain professional quality photos I have NEVER had a user attack my contribs like this. Please take a look at the photos that he is trying to claim add value to these Wikis, and after 11 years of staying here in Silom Thailand I can attest to the simple fact that my photos are photos of what I represent them to be. Please take a look at the revision history of these pages, and he pictures that Paul 012 seems to think add value to this story.--WPPilot 16:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Part of my frustration is that I have spent thousands of dollars to come here and do photos, exclusive ones for Wikipedia, as I have for years. To have another user simply shut off my efforts and not make any effort to communicate in a manner that other admins feel is professional is really causing no good what so ever. I am here to do photos, and I get the feeling that this user does not want me to.--WPPilot 16:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Comment: This 3RR report was not filed in the proper form, but I've created a header that tries to reflect the issue. At present it looks like no admin action is needed, since nobody has broken 3RR. WPPilot's previous request for assistance appears to be this thread at the WP:Help desk. The steps of WP:Dispute resolution are available to both of you. If either of you continues to revert, action may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Once again user Paul 012 has reverted my contribution on the Silom page. His new claim is that the Sky train is a few hundred yards past the location it was in my photo, and the map he offers shows that the other photo IS a photo of Silom. This is his third reversion, (3rr) and now qualifies him for consideration of action. WPPilot (talk)--WPPilot 13:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I hope WPPilot isn't accusing Takeaway of being a sockpuppet of mine, in addition to ignoring the clearly presented facts and insisting on attacking my supposed motives. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I removed the incorrectly named image from the Silom article because, as Paul 012 has mentioned already, it doesn't show Silom road at all but instead the beginning of Rachadamri road, across the intersection with Rama 4 road. - Takeaway (talk) 15:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Facts are not in any way clear, the address that was used is NOT the location on the photo I took, but a block down the street. This is a waste of my time, and I really would rather get paid for my efforts then donate them to a page that someone thinks he owns. Fact is that the map Paul 012 posted CLEARLY shows that the one photo is of Silom. I have better things to do then deal with this petty childish stuff. The sky train was departing the Saladang station, on Silom road, the map shows a green arrow a block further down the road, so it is misleading yet it shows that the skyline photo IS Silom, so his photo of cars (that could be anywhere) that he was so determined to use taken by a cel phone, to me shows that the intent is not objective. --WPPilot 16:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry that you feel that way but both Paul 012 and I recognise the subject of your photo as being the beginning of Rachadamri road. Looking at the photo, I think that it is probably made from the balcony of one of the rooms of the Dusit Thani Hotel. The expanse of grass alongside the road can only be the corner of Lumpini Park as the other three corners of this one intersection are either buildings, shrubs alongside buildings, or the parking lot of the Dusit Thani Hotel. This can only mean that the image shows Rachadamri road. Please have a look at Google Maps/Google Earth to verify this. - Takeaway (talk) 17:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:149.254.181.198 reported by User:Thelmadatter (Result:no violation )[edit]

Page: Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 149.254.181.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) and 81.100.242.0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [37]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [38]
  2. [39]
  3. [40]
  4. [41]
  5. [42]
  6. [43]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:81.100.242.0

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

Comments:
Thelmadatter (talk) 00:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation Please read 3RR and note that the reverts have to come within 24 hours. KrakatoaKatie 22:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Gjtitjg reported by User:Loriendrew (Result: Indef)[edit]

Page
Mohonk Mountain House (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Gjtitjg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570900349 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
  2. 04:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570901145 by EvergreenFir (talk)"
  3. 04:41, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Block this trolling vandal"
  4. 04:43, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Another stupid trolling vandal"
  5. 04:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "A stupid bot, third stupid trolling vandal"
  6. 04:48, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Please block all 3 vandals"
  7. 04:51, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "PLEASE stop ALL 3 asshoIe vandals."
  8. 04:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "PLEASE BLOCK ALL 3 vandals, it is VERY ANNOYING!"
  9. 04:58, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "PLEASE block all 3 n!ggar annoying vandals."
  10. 05:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Im going to have to warn the last vandal."
  11. 05:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Stop it you n!ggar."
  12. 05:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570903765 by Loriendrew (talk)"
  13. 05:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570903982 by Loriendrew (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 05:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Long term pattern of vandalism on Mohonk Mountain House. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

User evading blocks (Fruugirt, Casason), persistent vandalism despite warning, using inappropriate language. ☾Loriendrew☽ (talk) 05:12, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest to postpone a discussion because I just gave him to read a page on the 3-revert-rule.--Mishae (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Lakdfhia reported by User:NeilN (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Patton Oswalt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Lakdfhia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 04:50, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
  2. 05:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ reworded statement on racism, please no whitewashing of bigotry"
  3. 06:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "not generalization. is statement of fact. is not say he is racist, only has engaged in public racism. clear distinction."
  4. 06:11, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 570908353 by NeilN (talk) is more source now"
  5. 06:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Personal life */ is two source, vulgar whitewashers"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 06:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Patton Oswalt. using TW"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 05:35, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Racism charge */ new section"
  2. 06:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Racism charge */"
  3. 06:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Racism charge */"
Comments:
  • Just reverted ClueBot NG at 20:03 UTC with the edit summary "is unsourced, please to not be vandalised by bot". I've left a message on his talk page to make sure he understands that's a revert and he could be blocked for it. —C.Fred (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    The bot revert was number 7, number six was this. - MrOllie (talk) 20:26, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
    Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Studiomusica reported by User:Kww (Result: 48h)[edit]

Page: Wake Up (Youngblood Hawke album) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Studiomusica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: 29 aug 2013 om 23:17

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 29 aug 2013 om 23:17
  2. 30 aug 2013 05:08‎
  3. 30 aug 2013 16:52
  4. 31 aug 2013 14:10
  5. 31 aug 2013 20:55

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [44]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [45]

Comments:
I had previously blocked this editor as a sock of 3jz01bcs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) but unblocked him when checkuser evidence didn't corroborate. I still think that's probably the case, but at this point I am too WP:INVOLVED to take further action.—Kww(talk) 21:45, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Blocked for 48 hours. Yes, the linkage between the two users does produce large amounts of quacking, but presumably the checkuser disparity means it's a meatpuppetry issue instead (or a technical way round CU). Black Kite (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

User:2.102.186.231 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: No action)[edit]

Page: Talk:Chelsea Manning (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2.102.186.231 (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. [46]
  2. [47]
  3. [48]
  4. [diff]

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

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

Comments:
I believe this is an IP hopper as i have seen a similar IP a few days earlier. Also note it violates WP:CANVASS which state that "Notifications must be polite, neutrally worded with a neutral title" Pass a Method talk 21:00, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

No need to give me a warning. You also made three reverts, though I feel no need to defend myself. 2.102.186.231 (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
This dispute doesn't even show up in the last 200 edits of the talk page, so it's rapidly disappearing into the rear view mirror. Nonetheless User:Pass a Method's removal of text from a talk post by User:Obiwankenobi on the grounds of WP:CANVASS violation appears to have weak justification. The IP was reverting Pass a Method's edit to restore the original text that Obiwankenobi had posted. I suggest this be closed with no action. If 3RR had been broken (even on a talk page) I'd still recommend a block, but we only see three reverts reported. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: No action, per my comment above. Due to the page move, you have to look at the history of Talk:Bradley Manning to see what this was about. EdJohnston (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Czixhc reported by User:Tobus2 (Result:no violation )[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [50]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [51]
  2. [52]
  3. [53]

Also (same change to other pages):

  1. [54]
  2. [55]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [56]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [57]

Comments:
User:Czixhc has been arguing for acceptance of a map he added to Human skin colour for about 6 weeks and is now starting to add it to other pages despite it's verifiability still being under discussion. The map was removed on 20th July and he reverted 4 removals by 2 different editors (not myself) [58], [59], [60] and [61] and was warned for 3RR on 24th July[62]. Removal was again reverted 3 days later by User:Undress_006 (friend?/sock?) [63] and by IP's (142.166.x.x) over the next 2 weeks [64], [65], [66], [67].

Discussion on the talk page started immediately after the first reverts and has been continuing (for better or worse) ever since. About a week ago Czixhc reverted twice again [68], [69] and then started talking about using the map on other pages[70]. Two days ago, in between posts to the talk page, he added the map to International migration[71] and has reverted it's removal three times [72], [73] and [74] in just under 7 hours. This afternoon it looks like he got frustrated that I didn't reply to his post within 2 hours[75] and added the map to two further pages, Immigration to Argentina[76] and French Uruguayan[77]. He has yet to break 3RR but I am concerned this is escalating into a multipage edit war and is better stopped sooner than later. Tobus2 (talk) 10:15, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation If he hasn't violated 3RR, why did you make the report and waste our time? Additionally, you're as close as he is to 3RR, so think about your own behavior. KrakatoaKatie 22:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
My apologies, I thought this was the place to report edit warring as well as 3RR violations. Can you please point me to the place this should be reported. Tobus2 (talk) 22:34, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
This is the right place to report both edit warring and breaches of WP:3RR. Another way of looking at Katie's comment is that you are as guilty of edit warring as the editor you reported.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
My edits were restoring the status quo which I thought was in line with WP:Revert, but ultimately I agree, it's not OK to be reverting the same content on several pages several times a day which is why I'm seeking some sort of intervention here. Tobus2 (talk) 11:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • I know that i was found innocent in this, but there are some things that i'd like to clarify: 1-I've brought evidence that backs the map up (and that eveidence comes from the Oxford Brookes University, a very serious institution) while tobus hasn't brought any during all this time, according to the burden of proof: "The burden of proof is the obligation resting on a party in a trial to produce the evidence that will shift the conclusion away from the default position to one's own position. He who does not carry the burden of proof carries the benefit of assumption, meaning he needs no evidence to support his claim. Fulfilling the burden of proof effectively captures the Presumption of innocence, passing the burden of proof off to another party." This is why i'm adding it. because Tobus hasn't brought any evidence (on the 6 weeks that this discussion have lasted) that supports his point of the map being unreliable, in fact the only reason for which he keeps removing it is because he haven't textually admited it as reliable. I also must remark that Tobus intentionally reported me at a hour he knows that i'm not on wikipedia. Czixhc (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Anyone interested can see the discussion on action and my sources here: [78]. Czixhc (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
The map has a single self-published source which fails to meet Wikipedia:Verification#Self-published_sources.
Czixhc has again reverted this morning[79] and [80]. My understanding is that when new material is being contested the page should stay at the status quo (ie without the contested material) until consensus is reached - from [WP:Reverting]: "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.". If this is correct then I will again revert his changes and expect it to stay that way, if I've interpreted the policy wrongly I'll leave the pages as is until the matter is decided. Can somebody please clarify whether Czixhc's changes should stay up or down while we are resolving the issue? Tobus2 (talk) 00:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Tobus, this is not the right place to discuss this. continue in the talk page. Czixhc (talk) 00:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Atelerix reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page
Gilgit–Baltistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Atelerix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:38, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571090771 by Darkness Shines (talk)"
  2. 15:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571021294 by Qwyrxian (talk)"
  3. 01:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571010433 by Qwyrxian (talk)"
  4. 21:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  5. [81]
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Gilgit–Baltistan. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 15:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Recent changes */ new section"
Comments:

User is continually changing the article from a sourced version to a very POV one which has no sources in it. He appears to be copy and pasting from an older version. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User has reverted again after this report, diff added. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Elockid (Talk) 17:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Jack Styler reported by User:Rhododendrites (Result: )[edit]

Page
WikiLeaks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Jack Styler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 15:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Added information"
  2. 15:30, 1 September 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. 15:27, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Added information"
  4. 15:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Added current information to the end of the article"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 15:49, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on WikiLeaks. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring / vandalism on the WikiLeaks page after message and warning. Rhododendrites (talk) 15:51, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. He's a new editor, and it doesn't look like vandalism to me, more likely incompetence. You haven't even tried to talk to him, just left warnings. Nor has Andy other than shouting at him in edit summaries. Also, the first diff in your list is not a revert.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Andy did also leave him a message, brief as it may have been, before my warning. What would best practices be for such a situation, when someone (new or not) doesn't seem to check the usertalk or edit summaries but nonetheless keeps on adding the same thing in the span of a short time? (Assuming a certain level of damage of the edits) rpp instead? --Rhododendrites (talk) 21:26, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
      • There really wasn't any damage as the article is under pending changes, so he couldn't consummate his edits. And being new makes a difference. If an experienced user is making absurd changes, it's less important to talk to them. If it's a content dispute, there should always be discussion. RFPP is intended for vandalism, and this isn't vandalism, and all RFPP could do would be to alter the article to semi-protection, which seems a waste of energy and not really warranted. You're right about Andy. He did leave a message (I mistook it for a warning). And Jack tried again to add the material after that message. I've left a second message on Jack's talk page. If he doesn't respond and continues to attempt to edit disruptively, you can update this report or contact me on my talk page if I'm on-wiki. I put the article on my watchlist, but I'm not checking in as much as I normally do.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
        • Good point. I had forgotten the changes were pending, which makes a difference. Where I wasn't clear is with the case of repeatedly inserted direct edits -- which, while not really vandalism, are nonetheless problematic -- without reading summaries/talk pages. Seems after several back and forth a noticeboard is the only other way lest risking 3RR oneself. Regardless, it's true in this case it wasn't necessary. Thanks for checking into it. --Rhododendrites (talk) 22:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:178.109.150.75 reported by User:EuroCarGT (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Talk:Myanmar (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
178.109.150.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  2. 21:13, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  3. 21:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  4. 21:12, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  5. 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  6. 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  7. 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  8. 21:11, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  9. 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  10. 21:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  11. 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  12. 21:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  13. 21:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  14. 21:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  15. 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  16. 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  17. 21:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  18. 21:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  19. 21:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  20. 20:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  21. 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  22. 20:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  23. 20:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  24. 20:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  25. 20:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  26. 20:55, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  27. 20:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  28. 20:54, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Fuckwit."
  29. 20:52, 1 September 2013 (UTC) ""
  30. 20:44, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571128834 by Smsarmad (talk)"
  31. 20:37, 1 September 2013 (UTC) ""
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 20:58, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Reverted edits by 178.109.150.75 (talk) to last revision by Lugia2453 (HG)"
Comments:

Vandalism, reverting many edits multiple times, using bad words, disruptive editing and lots more. ///EuroCarGT 21:14, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

 Done - User blocked for vandalism. ///EuroCarGT 21:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Crème3.14159 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Partition of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Crème3.14159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Prev Ver
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 22:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Aftermath */"
  2. 05:22, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Unfortunately, Wikipedia does not allow self-published sources. So, please refrain from adding them."
  3. 23:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC) ""
  4. 21:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC) "70.76.85.36 and Fowler&Fowler, please build consensus on the talk page and don't start a revert war. Thanks."


Page
Asaram Bapu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Previous version reverted to
29 August
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 23:47, September 1, 2013
  2. 23:59, September 1, 2013
  3. 00:05, September 2, 2013
  4. 09:32, September 2, 2013
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
24 Aug, 1 Sept, 2 Sept
The warning was served by TitoDutta after I undid his two reverts on the Asaram Bapu page. He has been trying hard to sanitize the page, redacting criminal allegations as much as he can. He started reverting my edits. There is a discussion with Jimmy Wales on the BLP Noticeboard regarding this.--Crème3.14159 (talk) 03:51, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring after multiple warnings and doing the last revert 30 minutes outside the 24 hours bracket. --SMS Talk 03:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

@2nd diff: Merely following what somebody MrOllie did here: [82] --Crème3.14159 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I did not do more than three reverts within 24 hours since one of the reverts was simply deleting a lulu.com link that a user has been repeatedly adding. MrOllie had done the exact same thing there before.[83] So, I assumed it was okay to remove a lulu.com link. --Crème3.14159 (talk) 03:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note For a variety of reasons, I will not rule on this report, but Crème3.14159 is (also?) edit-warring at Asaram Bapu.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:04, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I have added/merged the Asaram Bapu report in this report. --SMS Talk 09:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Note that the edits to the Bapu BLP appear to be BLP violations, or at the very least they lack the talk page discussion necessary to establish consensus Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content. An uninvolved admin may decide to use the available discretionary sanctions to prevent edit warring with BLP violating material. Also as mentioned here Wikipedia:AN#Protect_the_article.3F, I would suggest an uninvolved admin fully protect the article, IRWolfie- (talk) 10:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
  • Update: User is now blocked for sockpuppetry for one week. --SMS Talk 18:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User:58.165.49.106 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
List of Prime Ministers of Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
58.165.49.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "Wow you are so pathetic it's not even funny"
  2. 10:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "Nope, sorry"
  3. 10:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "Lol just stop"
  4. 10:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "Wow just stop you have no reason to take it out it was a major policy of the Howard Government"
  5. 10:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "What, are you saying the Pacific Solution never existed?"
  6. 09:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC) ""
  7. 07:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "You have no reason to take this out it is a proven fact proven on the Australian Government Website get over yourself."
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 10:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "Caution: Not adhering to neutral point of view on List of Prime Ministers of Australia. (TW)"
  2. 10:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Not adhering to neutral point of view on List of Prime Ministers of Australia. (TW)"
  3. 10:55, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on List of Prime Ministers of Australia. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 10:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Pacific Solution */ new section"
  2. 10:59, 2 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Pacific Solution */"
Comments:

☑Y Blocked for 24 hours – warned and asked to discuss controversial edits. Starting to get hostile to other editors. --Canley (talk) 11:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation that this edit warring actually began yesterday, from a quite different IP address (124.180.157.79), but almost certainly the same editor, based on the style and content of language in article text and in Edit summaries. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

User:FRANKBISTORY reported by User:Rockypedia (Result: 48 hours)[edit]

Page: Goodluck Jonathan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: User talk:FRANKBISTORY (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FRANKBISTORY (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [Goodluck_Jonathan&oldid=571312101]

Diffs of the user's reverts: Basically, FRANKBISTORY has undone my edits without any explanation as to why. The strangest thing is, most, if not all, of my edits were simply grammar and spelling fixes. In addition, after I attempted to talk about the issue on his talk page, he deleted all of my attempts to communicate via his talk page, and did so multiple times after I attempted to undo those edits.

In addition, it appears FRANKBISTORY has engaged in sock-puppetry - AIRFORCEBOY appeared at the same time and edited the same articles. FRANKBISTORY also attempted, and is still attempting, to delete the discussion of this sock-puppetry on the article's talk page, sometimes while logged in, and other time via an anonymous IP.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I would link to the discussion on the user's talk page, but each time I've attempted to discuss, he does not respond, and simply deletes my attempts at communication.

As another update, my notification of this posting on the user's talk page has also been deleted by him, the same as every other attempt to communicate has been deleted. Rockypedia (talk) 02:22, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

Rockypedia has a very poor command of the english language,contains errors and mistakes. Hope everyone will check all his edits. He is just editing for editing sake. No real contribution. Frank

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked - 48 hours to FRANKBISTORY for edit warring and making personal attacks in edit summaries. Rockypedia is warned not to keep reverting at Goodluck Jonathan. EdJohnston (talk) 03:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Prestigiouzman reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Warned)[edit]

Page
Irish people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Prestigiouzman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 10:05, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid Obvious Censorship Attempt, Valid, Referenced, sound input"
  2. 13:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Go to anyone of the links on both the Righdamhna and Tanistry Pages,Second Censorship attempt undone"
  3. 14:42, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "Repeated Censorship attempt of Valid,referenced input, Request pagelock"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

Edit warring notice given to subject at 14:26 (UTC) by Snowded, response was to revert again. Edit warring across several articles reverted by at least 3 editors Dougweller (talk) 14:57, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Well in fact I've turned Righdamhna into redirect to Tanistry as it was just a dictionary definition, plus they went and duplicated List of High Kings of Ireland into it to bulk it up. Plus I noticed they've been sticking in distantly related links into a whole lot of see also's, they just shouldn't be included as at the level of relatedness a huge number of links would be included. Dmcq (talk) 20:39, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
Did I miscount or something? Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Result: Pretigiouzman is warned that continued edits of the same nature may lead to a lengthy block for disruption. Citations to the output of the self-publisher perfectpublishers.co.uk are not reliable for use on Wikipedia. See also the report of POV-pushing by Prestigiouzman at WT:WikiProject Celts#POV pushing .28and threats.29 at Tuatha D.C3.A9 Danann. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Please hang tight, i will meet all criteria soon--Prestigiouzman (talk) 10:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Правичност reported by User:Sokac121 (Result: Page protected before report was filed)[edit]

Page
Slavs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Правичност (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:17, 30 August 2013‎ "Undid revision 570848793 by Sokac121 (talk)" (number of Serbs, changes has done IP)
  2. 00:48, 1 September 2013‎‎ (Bosniaks-Bosnians)"
  3. 15:52, 1 September 2013‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 571092986 by IvanOS (talk)" (number of Serbs)
  4. 15:24, 1 September 2013 (UTC) "without reason remove 1,200 bytes"
  5. 20:32, 1 September 2013‎ (UTC) "Undid revision 571131749 by CodeCat (talk)" (Bosniaks-Bosnians)