Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive228

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:DavidHGrateful reported by User:Zad68 (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Genital modification and mutilation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

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

  • Initial edit (as IP): [1]
  1. 12:04, 11 November 2013 (edit summary: "")
  2. 13:19, 11 November 2013 (edit summary: "Trying to work with JamesBWatson to clarify this page.")
  3. 14:08, 11 November 2013 (edit summary: "please, let's get this right")
  4. 18:18, 11 November 2013 (edit summary: "The distinction between mutilation and modification is obvious to any rational person.... I think my first experience with an internet troll.")
  5. 20:13, 11 November 2013 (edit summary: "Another attempt to objectively define the topic of this page. I added cross-references.") - another attempt to redefine the subject of the article in terms of this one issue.
  • Diff of warning: here
  • Hand-written message too: here

Each of these edits revolves around edit-warring back in the phrase "such as the circumcision of infant boys." Also recommend looking at this editor's other contribs to see the same theme happening at related articles too.

Zad68 20:02, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:28, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Central Casting reported by User:MrMoustacheMM (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Decapitated (band) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:Decapitated (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Central Casting (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 217.96.115.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (I feel confident these are one and the same editor)


Previous version reverted to: [2]
Previous version reverted to: [3]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk pages: [12] and [13]

Comments: Appears to be a WP:SPA solely existing to remove this former band member from the band's article and related template. The IP has some previous edits (including this person's biographical article), but most recent edits have (with one exception) been removing this person from those two pages. Both myself and another editor have reverted this editor's changes, and asked on their talk page to discuss their strange edits, but so far there has been no attempt at discussion (or even an edit summary).

I am the other editor in question. User:Central Casting has made no attempt to discuss this, either on the article talk page, his/her own talk page, our talk pages, or even in the edit summary. They seem to be mindlessly hitting the undo button for inexplicable reasons. — Richard BB 22:58, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:NYCWikiKid reported by User:oknazevad (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Template:New York Cosmos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NYCWikiKid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [14]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [15]
  2. [16]
  3. [17]
  4. [18]
  5. [19]

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

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

Comments:

Editor has reverted to preferred version despite reversion by multiple different editors. These edits are substantially similar to ones he proposed in September and were rejected. But most importantly, there has been dicussions at the WP:FOOTY project recently about this, and a discussion started today about this at the WP:NORN noticeboard. Despite being notified of all of this, NYCWikiKid has not participated. oknazevad (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion at the NORN noticeboard started a couple days ago actually. – Michael (talk) 23:47, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User: Solicitr reported by Damwiki1 (talk) (Result: Three editors warned)[edit]

Page: Flight deck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. 20:33, 20 May 2013
  2. 08:44, 9 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Armored decks */ Removed false statement and misleadingly used cite.")
  3. 03:53, 10 November 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 580928410 by Damwiki1 (talk): Re-reverted- stop repeating your lies")
  4. 04:41, 10 November 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 580995188 by BilCat (talk) It is NOT well-cited, in fact the cite directly contradicts the assertion, which is categorically untrue")
  5. 20:10, 10 November 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 581017543 by Damwiki1 (talk)Bring on the admin-you'll lose. Previous attemptst discussion have foundered, and I've let this stand for too long.")

Diff of edit waring: User_talk:Solicitr#Edir_warring.2F3RR

Damwiki1 (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC) Comments - I am unfamiliar with this process. Can an admin help me with it? This is a link to the relevant talk page: Latest revision: capacity comparison. Two editors have reverted the above edits but the page now reflects the last edit above, which an admin should revert?

  • Well, an admin could revert that. An admin could block Solicitr for edit warring, but they haven't broken the 3RR rule since this is really a bold edit, and your revert the first in the process. But I'm more interested in seeing what the current discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Flight_Deck delivers: whether Solicitr is blocked or not, the problem is still there. So I'll leave this unresolved and will let the usual admins on this noticeboard decide, but my suggestion is to not block but await dispute resolution. That the article is now what you consider the wrong version is immaterial to me: there's no rush, and this is not a pressing matter. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 18:21, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Edit 1, above, is substantially the same as the last 4, so edit 2, above, does not seem to be a bold edit.Damwiki1 (talk) 20:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Result: User:Solicitr, User:Damwiki1 and User:BilCat are warned not to make further edits like the ones listed above, contrasting the capacities and merits of USN and RN carrier flight decks, until consensus is reached. You should wait for the result of the DRN. Judging from Talk:Flight deck, this dispute has been running since 2012. User:Solicitr may be sanctioned if he keeps referring to 'lies'. EdJohnston (talk) 03:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:PR12477 reported by User:Drmies (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: John A. Coleman Catholic High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: PR12477 (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]
  5. [24]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [25]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page: User_talk:Thomas.W#Hi_there.21. Also on user's own talk page.

Comments:
Straightforward edit warring to include promotional and unverified language. User does not seem to be aware of various guidelines and informs us, for instance, that there are no references available for the text they keep re-adding but that it doesn't matter because it's true: "It's all accurate. No citation is necessary or even available!" Other juicy commentary includes this, "SO...what is your problem? You like to patrol Wiki looking for meaningless words to edit out to make yourself feel important?", on User talk:Thomas.W. As far as I'm concerned this is headed directly toward an indefinite block for NPA, EW, OWN, INCOMPETENCE, etc. Drmies (talk) 18:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • And I don't mind the "Go fuck yourself" so much, but being called "Sheldon" must be some kind of Yankee offense and I won't stand for it. No I won't! Drmies (talk) 18:25, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Enok reported by User:Rob984 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: List of aircraft carriers in service (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Enok (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [26]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

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

Comments:
Much discussion took place within the edit summaries, as I was attempting to explain that there was not consensus for their edit. Note: This is my first time reporting another user, apologies for any errors or issues. Rob (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected You both broke 3RR, but I've chosen to protected the page instead of blocking you both. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
So another editor must also be reverting their edits? I didn't realise. Apologies, Rob (talk) 22:10, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

User:203.87.133.107 reported by User:NeoBatfreak (Result: No action)[edit]

User being reported: 203.87.133.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) User repeatedly engaged in edit war on the article Justice League: The Flashpoint Paradox by adding irrelevant plot point.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. NeoBatfreak, this report is malformed, was put in the wrong place, and there's no edit war. Please familiarize yourself with policy and read the instructions before filing a report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Sorry.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:FergusM1970 reported by Zad68 (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: FergusM1970 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 02:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

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

  1. diff(edit summary: "This is not a health effect. It's just an unfounded "concern." We've been through all this") - removes statement about addiction from the CDC, it is a revert of previously added content, the edit summary even indicates Fergus knows this removal of well-sourced content has been contested, see for example diffs from August
  2. 03:09, 12 November 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 581274363 by Jmh649 (talk)No justification given for revert; the "restored content" was outdated and is superseded by new research and emerging consensus.") - second revert of CDC statement
  3. 03:10, 12 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Health effects */ None of this is a health effect.") - revert of other material too
  4. 03:11, 12 November 2013 (edit summary: "/* Addiction */ Removing again. No health effect is cited, only "concerns."") - revert #3 removing the same statement about addiction from the CDC
  5. 23:21, 12 November 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 581402547 by Yobol (talk)Undoing vandalism - not a revert.") - straight revert, claiming "vandalism" exemption but that's clearly suprious
  • Diff of warning: here, editor blocked previously for edit warring.

Zad68 02:05, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:TameImpalaFan reported by User:UpendraSachith (Result: Both warned)[edit]

Page: Tahan Lew-Fatt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TameImpalaFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [28]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581396316
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581406908
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581432002
  4. [diff]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29]

Comments:

  • User keeps unilaterally blanking the page because he doesn't think the person should have a page. UpendraSachith (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to say that I wasn't aware of the "3 revert rule" and I apologise for breaking it, but my intentions weren't to "vandalize" or "censor" the page as User:UpendraSachith incorrectly claimed that I was. I've explained my reasons above and it was purely due to the total lack of notability of the person in question.

I'd also like to point out that User:UpendraSachith also broke the 3 revert rule, and this was before I actually broke the rule, so that needs to be taken into consideration:

  1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581393102
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581401805
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tahan_Lew-Fatt&diff=prev&oldid=581431568

--TameImpalaFan (talk) 05:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Comment from uninvolved user: User:TameImpalaFan appears to have not have been warned about the 3RR prior to this posting. Both users have reverted the same number of times, and User:UpendraSachith obviously knew about the rules on edit warring since they came here. I have posted a warning on both editors' talk pages; if anything this seems like a case of WP:BOOMERANG. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • RE: User:VQuakr

I don't actually ever remember being warned about the 3 revert rule. I wasn't even aware that it existed. Where have I been warned before? It must have been a fair while ago because I've totally forgotten.

Once again, I apologise for breaking it, because I honestly do not remember knowing about it before. --TameImpalaFan (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Yikes, missed a key adverb there (added in italics above). VQuakr (talk) 08:00, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
It was ridiculous when you decided to remove all the information on your own initiative. Are you trying AFD a redirect page because that doesn't work. UpendraSachith (talk) 08:26, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • You've reverted my edits for a fourth time after reporting me for doing the same thing to you. Shouldn't you practice what you preach and leave the page as it stood after a deletion tag was added and after being warned for edit warring? You've reported me, yet I've not retaliated after being warned, while you continue to do the same exact thing that you've reported me for.--TameImpalaFan (talk) 08:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting wait.svg Warned. The article is currently intact and nominated for deletion. Despite the edit war, I don't like to lock an article that is being discussed at AfD. However, I don't expect any more battles fro either TameImpalaFan or UpendraSachith. If either editor reverts at this point, they risk being blocked with no notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:200.104.245.226 reported by User:Wee Curry Monster (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Ian Gow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 200.104.245.226 (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. [30]
  2. [31]
  3. [32]
  4. [33]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ian Gow#IP Edits

Comments:

You will note that the talk page discussion referred to is from 2 years ago. This is a dynamic IP who regularly returns to editing Ian Gow and other articles to remove information they consider trivial but other editors disagree and consider adds information/context to the article. A simple content disagreement is elevated to high drama as anyone who disagrees with him is a "moron", [35] "a fucking idiot" or "a despicable liar" or anyone of a series of delightful epithets reserved for anyone who disagrees with their edit. Eventually after a series of escalataing blocks, example, for edit warring he will usually move to a new IP and the cycle starts again. As it starts with a new IP the clock is reset to usually it starts with a 24 hr block. Started a WP:ANI thread this morning see WP:ANI#‎Abusive IP Editor is back Wee Curry Monster talk 12:14, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 31 hours by Drmies.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

User:2Awwsome reported by User:Toccata quarta (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: Frédéric Chopin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2Awwsome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: there have been multiple revisions reverted to.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [36]
  2. [37]
  3. [38]
  4. [39]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [40]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Frédéric Chopin (last two discussions); see also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 80#Frédéric Chopin

Comments:
User has been edit warring on this article for a long time already, disregarding the point of view of the vast majority of reliable sources and long-standing consensus. Toccata quarta (talk) 17:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Two of the reverts were of removal of content. The removals were blatant and deliberate WP:NPOV violations to get their point across. WP:NPOV is a core content policy, and core content policies cannot be superseded by other policies. And 5 v 3 (becoming 5 v 4) is not a vast majority. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
The warning was after the fourth reversion. And Toccata quarta, Nihil novi and Volunteer Marek are evidently a tag team. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
And if you're saying 'vast majority' because it has 10 times more WP:GHITS, remember that adding words greatly decreases the number of results. 2AwwsomeTell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up 18:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. Locked for two weeks by Nikkimaria. That doesn't mean that 2Awwsome didn't violate WP:3RR and personally attack other editors. I rarely block anyone after an article has been locked, but another admin is free to take a different view.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I protected before becoming aware of this report, and also gave the user a final warning regarding edit-warring on a different article - I was quite lenient under the circumstances, and wouldn't object if anyone wanted to block. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:88.104.20.161 reported by User:UsamahWard (Result: No violation)[edit]

Page: Andrew Gilligan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.104.20.161 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [41]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [42]
  2. [43]
  3. [44]
  4. [45]
  5. [46]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [47]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [48]

Comments:

The first of his recent removals, concerning the introduction, is strange, given the uncontentious inclusion of the subject matter in the main body, and the strong source attached to the introduction.

The second had not been discussed on the article's talk page, but had been discussed at WP:BLPN#Andrew_Gilligan. The sources, not the text, had previously been discussed by another editor and me here, where that editor felt less was more; I left it at that. The IP editor removed the text after this, but in his responses at BLPN quoted the sources from the earlier version, not those that he had actually removed.

This IP editor has in the last couple or weeks, with variations of his IP address, removed almost all text from the article that he felt was negative. Orginally he seemed to argue that blog sources couldn't be accepted in BLP under any circumstances, and that none of the negative material mattered or was fair. However, recently he has removed content regardless of sources. UsamahWard (talk) 22:11, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting x.svg No violation The IP hasn't broken 3RR, and you're just as guilty as they are in terms of edit warring. Note that a couple established users have voiced similar concerns to those of the IP in the past. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:212.9.8.161 reported by User:Moxy (Result:31 hours )[edit]

Page: Human evolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.9.8.161 (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: Just need to look at page history - 6 reverts just today. Simple case here

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

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

Has been warned as seen on talk page at User talk:212.9.8.161 Comments:

Already blocked for disruptive editing/edit warring. Vsmith (talk) 00:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Hammerb and User:Arbor to SJ reported by User:GregJackP (Result: Locked)[edit]

Page: Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammerb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), Arbor to SJ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: Northeastern Oklahoma A&M College

Diffs of the Hammerb's reverts:

  1. [49]
  2. [50]
  3. [51]
  4. [52]
  5. [53]
  6. [54]
  7. [55]
  8. [56]
  9. [57]
  10. [58]

Diffs of Arbor to SJ's reverts:

  1. [59]
  2. [60]
  3. [61]
  4. [62]
  5. [63]
  6. [64]
  7. [65]
  8. [66]
  9. [67]
  10. [68]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [69] [70]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [71]

Comments:
Uninvolved editor, found due to report at ANI. GregJackP Boomer! 06:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

They seem to be talking now as Hammerb found the article talk page. 129.9.104.10 (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've locked the article for a week. I left more detailed comments at WP:ANI.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Chelios123 reported by User:MarshalN20 (Result: both blocked)[edit]

Page: Chile–Peru football rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chelios123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [72]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [73]
  2. [74]
  3. [75]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76], [77] and [78]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [79]

Comments:User has been warned that the information he is adding, based on personal conclusions, constitutes WP:OR. The user refuses to understand and continues to edit war the article despite also being reminded about the WP:BRD process.--16:00, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The user simply refuses to WP:GETTHEPOINT. Please read the discussion at Talk:Chile–Peru football rivalry.--MarshalN20 | Talk 17:17, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
MarshalN20, how is the first diff above a revert?--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Pardon me, I placed it in there by mistake. However, the edit warring behavior is still evident (especially in the talk page). Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:29, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I have been notified about this on my talk page. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Argentine History#MarshalN20 topic banned, MarshalN20 is banned from "all articles, discussions, and other content related to the history of Latin America, broadly construed". The article subject to this edit war relates to the history of Latin America, considering that its lead section reads: "Peru and Chile have a rivalry that dates back from the War of the Pacific. Previously, the two nations had been on friendly terms sharing mutual alliances during the South American wars of independence and Chincha Islands War. Territorial, maritime, and cultural disputes have fueled tensions since the ending of the War of the Pacific. These historical feuds and lingering bitterness have led to a large football rivalry between both nations." – In consideration of this, MarshalN20, please provide reasons why you should not be sanctioned for violating your topic ban by editing this article, most recently today.  Sandstein  18:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I studied this aspect of the report as well, Sandstein, and, honestly, I wasn't sure whether MarshalN20's involvement in this was a violation of their topic ban or whether that was construing "broadly construed" too, uh, broadly. At the same time I am frequently disappointed by topic-banned editors pushing the envelope.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Sandstein, this is not a violation of my topic ban on "Latin American history" for three reasons:
  1. The football' rivalry between Chile and Peru is a current event.
  2. The Chile–Peru football rivalry has a history section (please see [80]) which I have not edited.
  3. The "Incas del Sur" matter took place this year, on October 26. The "broadly construed" clause, if used, does not apply to "recent history". I remember that User:Cambalachero asked for clarification on the range of "history", and the agreement reached (from the administrators) was that "recent history" does not apply to the ban (I'd provide a direct link to the clarification request, but "Wikimedia Error" messages prevent me from doing so).
This listed, thank you for giving me a chance to explain. Best regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
I note that the administrators defined a "recent history" range for Argentina, but not for Peru or Chile. However, 26 October 2013 is a date that, logically, falls into the category of "recent history". Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:20, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Here is the link to the clarification request (see [81]). Quoting NewyorkBrad, "When I voted on the original case, I was concerned that the topic-ban might be somewhat overbroad (other arbitrators did not agree). I agree that some clarification is in order. The relevant cut-off date should be one that reduces the likelihood that the problems identified in the decision will recur." Regards.--MarshalN20 | Talk 19:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Aside from anything else, the edits concern recent events the foundation of a new team in Chile in 2013, this is hardly history chaps. Sorry but even that absurdly broad topic ban description is being stretched here to imply a breach. The original edit is clearly WP:OR and per WP:BRD a talk page discussion should be initiated. Its been substantially improved since, making the original reason for reverting somewhat moot. I consider Marshal a wiki friend so it pains me to observe they shouldn't have been solely responsible for reverting Chelios123 as it makes their 3RR report somewhat problematic as both have edit warred. It would have been better to allow another edit to revert and equally I don't think his first edit summary helped. I'm not convinced this merits a block of anyone but they both definitely deserve a WP:TROUTing. Take a deep breath, WP:AGF and take it to talk guys. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:49, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
In reply to MarshalN20: The clarification request is not relevant here. It was about the question of when past events become "history" in the sense of the sanction. Arbitrators commented that anything later than 1983 shouldn't be considered "history" in Argentina. However, in this case, the article which you edited is related (or at least "broadly construed" related) to much earlier events, that is, the 1880s War of the Pacific, which clearly are "history". In passing, this concerns the same time period as the Paraguayan War, in relation to which the Arbitration Committee found you had been engaging in misconduct. Other parts of the article deal with such historical events as the creation of football teams in 1895 or 1927. It does not matter whether you edited these more historical parts of the article. Because the article as a whole is related (or at least "broadly construed" related) to the history of these countries, you violated the topic ban by editing any part of the article (see WP:TBAN). Your conduct is aggravated by your evident habit of pushing the boundaries of your topic ban, as seen in the WP:AE requests of 10 July 2013 and more recently 5 November 2013, which resulted in a one-month block which I lifted following your assurances that you would not violate the topic ban again. Considering that these assurances are now shown to have been less than sincere, and that a one-month block has proven to be an insufficient deterrent, I am blocking you for the period of two months. After the block expires, you must strictly comply with the ban and not edit any page remotely related to Latin American history. – As to Chelios123, they seem to have edit-warred, but we should wait on a statement by them.  Sandstein  19:54, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

───────────────────────── [82] Reverted again, with a clear threat in the edit summary. I have in the interest of openness declared my previous dealings with Marshall and I hope you'll note I was equally critical of Marshall, perhaps more so because of the previous relationship. Chelios123 is edit warring to impose their view, reviewing the talk page it is clear there is no consensus for their addition but they've added it anyway. I would have hoped this could have been dealt with in talk but it seems not. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Considering that Chelios123 has ignored this report, but continues reverting ([83]), I'm issuing a standard first-time 24 h block.  Sandstein  21:01, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

The football rivalry of Peru and Chile has nothing to do with history (reading "history" as the usual topics we may expect to find in history books; sports results are not among them). Do not confuse Chile–Peru football rivalry with Chile–Peru relations, the place for the history of the bilateral relations of both countries is the second one. In fact, the mentions to the old wars are completely off-topic in the disputed article, and should simply be removed. A football rivalry concerns only football topics. Note as well that those mentions do not introduce information expanded in the body of the article, which is not good article style, see WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY.

And note as well that, according to the Wikipedia:Banning policy, if an article contains a portion of information covered by the topic ban, but the article itself is not, then there's no violation of the topic ban if the edit is limited to the portions of the article that are not related to the topic. Even if the mentions to the wars were within topic, the article itself is not about history and the portions in dispute do not focus in such historical info, so there's no violation of the ban here. Cambalachero (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Eni.Sukthi.Durres reported by User:DeJeweller (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Albania national football team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [84]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. 1st revert
  2. 2nd revert
  3. 3rd revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning

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

Comments:

This guy has been recently blocked twice, but refuses to get the point that this is not his own website. He has not gone over the 3RR yet, but in my opinion he will do it pretty soon, if I revert him (he did 3 reverts to me in less than an hour), so I expect him to revert to death until he gets his way. Since I don't want to go through edit warring myself, I'm reporting him here as I have no choice. Btw (content wise) he keeps entering in the list of current players of the page of Albania's football national team three players that Either 1. Hever never been called up (Atdhe Nuhiu), or 2. Have not been called in the last four years (Besart Berisha), or 3. Are not even in the U21 of Albania and don't have a page in wikipedia yet (Thomas Strakosha). It's the typical arrogance of someone who thinks they own the page. --DaJeweller (talk) 22:19, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

O yes, let's see what admins. can say you. If you want send me a request on my Facebook profile and talk more...

--Eni.Sukthi.Durres (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

This editor keeps adding the player he thinks should be in the squad for example on the article talkpage he has states "better would be that these players to were included on national senior team, cause Atdhe Nuhiu is in a process to receive albanian passport, anyway this is story of our albanian's everywhere on the world" and "they will be soon, very soon part on national team". The players should clearly not be on the squad at the moment. QED237 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of one week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Tanmaya cs reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page
Jayadeva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
Tanmaya cs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 13:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. 14:11, 14 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 581628045 by RegentsPark (talk)"
  3. 14:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 581630711 by RegentsPark (talk)"
  4. 06:41, 15 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 581632124 by Abecedare (talk)"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
[85]


Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


Comments:

See Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics#Birth Place of jayadeva Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. It doesn't look hopeful to me as the user never talks.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:50, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:86.142.55.12 reported by User:Ruby Murray (Result: Semi-protected)[edit]

Page
Unapologetic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported
86.142.55.12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to
Diffs of the user's reverts
  1. 19:57, 15 November 2013 (UTC) ""
  2. Consecutive edits made from 20:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC) to 20:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    1. 20:15, 15 November 2013 (UTC) ""
    2. 20:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC) ""
    3. 20:25, 15 November 2013 (UTC) ""
  3. Consecutive edits made from 21:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC) to 21:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC)
    1. 21:00, 15 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 581820849 by Ruby Murray (talk) Stay outta this, Tomica asked for a reliable source and I gave him 5, so"
    2. 21:04, 15 November 2013 (UTC) ""
  4. 21:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 581824940 by Ruby Murray (talk) #IDGAF, It's sourced so mid your own business"
Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
  1. 21:22, 15 November 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring. (TW)"
Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
  1. 04:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC) "/* R&B */"
  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for a week.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Dan56 reported by User:76.107.252.227 (Result: Protected)[edit]

Page: London Calling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [86]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [87]
  2. [88]
  3. [89]
  4. [90] Possible sock saying what other people (besides him and dan56) think is irrevant


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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [91]

I know this is not the article talk page, but since he was the one who changed it, I thought it would be better to talk to him directly.

Comments:
User:Dan56 has took it upon himself to tag London calling as a post-punk album, despite the general consensus that this is punk into post-punk. On July 10th(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=London_Calling&diff=563601323&oldid=563580001). Dan56 changed the genre to post-punk without giving a reason as to why it was post-punk. since then he thinks any source no matter how reliable can't be added since it goes against what he thinks. several users have tried to revert it back yet his opinion has to be absolute over what others think. I have tried to add sources that conclude the album is punk but he keeps reverting them. Is it ok for a user to become a tyrant over a page? even if other users have reliable source(s) to back up their claim? No other website i'm aware of has London Calling as post-punk. The Clash's next album Sandinista! has a lot of the same elements as London Calling yet he sees no problem keeping that as punk.

I'm ok with post-punk staying but punk should be added as well considering the album is almost universally accepted as punk.--76.107.252.227 (talk) 22:12, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting support.svg Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for five days. Dan56 has not edited the article since November 10. More than one editor has reverted 76. 76's representation that there is a "consensus" on Dan56's talk page is wrong. I urge 76 to work these things out on article talk pages. Otherwise, they risk being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah you're right but more than one editor has changed it to punk. and like i said dan56 changed it to post-punk so i thought it would be better to talk to him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.252.227 (talk) 07:05, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

72.77.*.* reported by User:AdamRuining (Result: Semi)[edit]

Page: Out of the Furnace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 72.77.*.* (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [92]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [93]
  2. [94]
  3. [95]
  4. [96]


Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Due to being anonymous IPs from a related IP addresses.

Comments: Despite clear referencing of John Fetterman being inspirational for the film, supporters of Latoya Ruby Frazier have staged a campaign to cite her as a major source of influence. Ms. Frazier has not been a resident of Braddock for at least a decade, as evidenced by her own biography: http://www.latoyarubyfrazier.com/bio I understand banning the IP addresses may be difficult; locking the page to a prior version that includes citations to articles quoting Mr. Fetterman as an inspiration would be nice.

Adamruining (talk) 04:03, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

  • Result: Semiprotected two months. Non-stop edit warring by an IP-hopper; no posts on the talk page. The behavior goes back to early October. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Barney the barney barney reported by User:Alfonzo Green (Result: No action on report; Barney warned for comments here)[edit]

Any more comments will be reverted. This isn't going to spiral any more than it already has.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: Rupert Sheldrake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: [97] [98]

The new talk page section is here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#NPOV_tag

Also see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#NPOV_Template

and

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rupert_Sheldrake#removed_.22decidedly_psuedoscientific_.22_as_it.27s_not_a_true_statement_but_a_personal_opinion

Comments:

Twice today Barney has removed the NPOV tag from the Sheldrake article despite the fact that an NPOV dispute is currently pending on the administrators' noticeboard. Additionally the contested neutrality of the article continues to spark heated discussion on the talk page. Though falling short of 3RR, Barney's action is potentially damaging to Wikipedia as he's preventing casual readers from being warned about the raging NPOV controversy among editors.

Barney claims I must provide reasons for the NPOV tag, ignoring the brute fact of the ongoing dispute both on the talk page and the NPOV noticeboard. After he removed the tag the first time, I noted on the talk page that the tag must not be removed until the noticeboard complaint is resolved. He recklessly removed the tag again and claimed it's up to me to explain how the page fails to meet scholarly consensus. Yet this is precisely the dispute already ongoing on the talk page and not only the NPOV noticeboard but two other noticeboards as well. Does he expect me to duplicate all the arguments against the neutrality of the page just to get the tag to stick? This is absurd.

The three noticeboard disputes are located here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Bias_in_the_Rupert_Sheldrake_article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_is_a_BLP_mess

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Rupert_Sheldrake_.28again.29

Please take action to correct this problem. Alfonzo Green (talk) 00:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I see no clearer case of WP:BOOMERANG. Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) is basically not WP:COMPETENT to edit this article due to his pro-Sheldrake bias and therefore total disregard for policies including WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. He has been asked several times to explain his objections to the page with reference to policy. He cannot explain these objections because basically they are not in line with policy. Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) has been blocked before due his behaviour. I therefore propose with a heavy heart that Alfonzo Green (talk · contribs) be banned from editing WP:FRINGE articles, broadly construed, until his shows basic competence, under the terms of WP:ARB/PS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 17:15, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It appears that Alfonzo Green restored the POV template because there is an ongoing NPOV Noticeboard discussion "Bias in the Rupert Sheldrake article"(P) which has yet to resolve, and to which Alfonzo Green has made at least half a dozen contributions. The Template:POV suggests that the template can be removed when "There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved". It hasn't.
It is also not cool to question another editor's WP:COMPETENCE, or warn them that they have "been blocked before", or suggest that they should be blocked for following the NPOV Noticeboard process, as you did with myself.[99](P). --Iantresman (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it's not cool to point out previous blocks. But I'm not with the cool kids - I'm with the science geeks. So please do remind me again, Iantresman (talk · contribs), who was blocked after having thrown a massive WP:BOOMERANG at himself? Oh yes, it was you (the page really is hilarious btw), and unfortunately nothing you've done has convinced me that your lack of WP:COMPETENCE has changed either. In a nutshell? I quote FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) with his delightful urge to the "committee to have a long look at the contributions and actions of it's (sic) bringer, Iantresman (talk · contribs). As a chronic promoter of pro-pseudoscience bias in articles, Iantresman has consistently disrupted pseudoscience article talk pages dismissing WP:NPOV, and has a history of tendentious and disruptive arguments at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view, where he's sought to weaken Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/FAQ#Pseudoscience and Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Undue_weight to favor his bias". Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Careful, you are pushing into personal attacks with your tone. You know better to not remove the tag while the discussion is ongoing until it has been resolved either by closing or extended inactivity. There is no reason for you to remove that tag again whilst the process goes on and you are well aware of it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs), but I'm the one trying to implement policies properly - ask TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) or David in DC (talk · contribs) or Vzaak (talk · contribs) - i'm sorry for the "tone" but in this case the "assume good faith" ship sailed long long ago. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
THe purpose of the tag btw is to try to "warn" readers that the article is "unreliable". It isn't. The complaint is entirely spurious, and they will keep on recycling tired refuted arguments ad infinitum to try to keep it there until someone implements WP:ARB/PS. Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:12, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not that it is unreliable, but that it may be not neutral in its point of view which is a major concern. Whether or not you feel that the process is being abused or gamed is secondary when there is a very public and active discussion that is ongoing in both the real world and on wiki. Whenever such high profile attention comes to an article the "process" takes over and the tag should remain as a result. Its not even questionable given that far more eyes are drawn to this article - if several people have made a fuss over its neutrality the comment stays and the problem should be worked out. Calling it bad-faith just makes your position weaker. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

(e/c)The last comment on the board by someone who wasnt already fully participating in the article talk page was Mangoe's comment back on Nov. 8, so that seems pretty "inactive" to me. During the process only two people who were not already active on the article talk page participated in the NPOV conversation and they both concluded that not including the "patterns seem to match" comment was NOT an NPOV violation. "("What all of this talking and talking and talking comes down to is trying to squeeze in the claim that one researcher may have said something that could be interpreted as saying that Sheldrake's ideas may not be entirely unfounded. This is way too weak to justify inclusion." User:Mangoe and "Are you proposing to add something like 'Wiseman conceded that "there may well be something going on"' based on this interview? That would cause readers to think that Wiseman is agreeing that Sheldrake's data gives evidence to show that the dog has psychic powers, and that would be a complete misinterpretation of what Wiseman actually said." by User:Johnuniq) Alfonzo Green's assertion that there is still any ongoing discussion about that particular NPOV issue and bringing EW review on the removal of the tag is lame at best, and prime example of the WP:TE going on. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:30, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of the tag is to notify readers that editors are actively discussing whether the article complies with wikipedia's policy about articles being written from a nuetral point of view.
Editors are actively discussing whether the article complies with wikipedia's policy about articles being written from a nuetral point of view.
The tag should not be removed. I've spent a fair amount of time today trying to make the article more BLP- and FRINGE-compliant. I've received encouragement from sources on several different "sides" of this multi-sided debate. But the POV issue is nowhere near resolved.
Some editors who think I'm nuts may just be being polite about letting me finish my most recent stab at putting the article into a state that might be approved on the talk page and justify removing the tag, before
evaluating it positively, or
concluding I'm still nuts, and reverting me or commenting on the talk page that my effort still falls short. David in DC (talk) 20:35, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Pictogram voting comment.svg Note. I'm closing this without taking action against Barney for the two reverts (the tag is back, and he hasn't tried to remove it again). This article has been - and is - on more noticeboards than I can even keep track of. There was no good reason to file this report on this board. However, Barney the barney barney's comments here merit a warning. They are unconstructive at best and at worst constitute personal attacks. As for WP:ARB/PS, if someone believes that the discretionary sanctions have been violated, they can go to WP:AE. I've placed a template on the Sheldrake talk page (although there's way too many warnings on that page), and if I have time, I may start issuing warnings to editors of the sanctions.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:37, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:TakuyaMurata reported by User:Dan Murphy (Result: Warned)[edit]

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


Previous version reverted to: [100]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [101]
  2. [102]
  3. [103]
  4. [104]
  5. [105]

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

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

Comments:

User:Daki122 reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: 24 hours)[edit]

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Daki122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [107]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. [108]
  2. [109]
  3. [110]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [111]

Comments:

This page is under an ArbCom-imposed 1RR restriction limiting editors to one revert per day. While it's broken from time to time by most editors and often overlooked due to the nature of the content, it's common courtesy to self-revert and cease-and-desist if reminded. It's clear that Daki has not only broken the 1RR here, but has done so even after being warned.

Side note: Daki's third reversion is a reversion of my (lone) reversion of his second reversion. I had intended to revert his first reversion, but clicked the wrong button and didn't realise it until just now. Mea culpa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lothar von Richthofen (talkcontribs) 03:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes but you should also know that User:Sopher99 does aprox 10 edits and reverts in 24 hours I was just trying to get the mistake cleared out because he used a source(youtube video 16 seconds long) to change the article I also responded to the Talk page of the map https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war where in the section of Sanamayan there multiple complains about the edit that Sopher99 and later the revert of User:Lothar von Richthofen who himself did not give any source what so ever but only said the revert was because i have broken the rules.So I would say that this complain from User:Lothar von Richthofen is very biased and unprofessional for a user like him.I don't think that this is my fault because i was just trying to get it right.Look at this and tell me how many edits did user Sopher99 did in the past 72 hours and look at how many times those got reverted.https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Syrian_civil_war_detailed_map&action=history — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daki122 (talkcontribs) 13:44, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Stop x nuvola with clock.svg Blocked – 24 hours for violation of the article 1RR rule which has been imposed through Syrian Civil War general sanctions. Daki122's response (above) to the complaint isn't persuasive, and doesn't seem to be a promise to wait for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

User:Hiyob346 reported by User:Middayexpress (Result: Blocked)[edit]

Page: Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hiyob346 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)


Previous version reverted to: [112]

Diffs of the user's reverts:

  1. Revision as of 00:35, 17 November 2013, (removed info on relationship between Eritrean and Somalian cuisine)