Page:Right-to-work law (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Lyonscc (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert: [diff] 15:09, 14 December 2012 (diff | hist) Right-to-work law (In WP Articles, proponents of a position typically fall first before opposing arguments (which logically flows bettwe))
• 2nd revert: [diff] 04:43, 15 December 2012 (diff | hist) Right-to-work law (Switched order back to Proponents then Opponents, per WP convention to fully explore the topic before presenting opposing viewpoint sections)
• 3rd revert: [diff] 14:19, 15 December 2012 (diff | hist) Right-to-work law (Please discuss changes on talk page. BLS Stats do show what is claimed, and supporting arguments run first in an article before dissenting ones (per convention))
• 4th revert: [diff] 19:09, 15 December 2012 (diff | hist) Right-to-work law (/* Proponents */)

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

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

Comments:
Diffs 3 and 4 are different information than 1 and 2,, where #4 was reverting a POV rewording of an NPOV-worded statementLyonscc (talk)22:58, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Lyonscc is pushing a POV by reverting the opposing and pro section 4 separate times.

1st time: 15:09, 14 December 2012‎ Lyonscc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,840 bytes) (-1,361)‎ . . (In WP Articles, proponents of a position typically fall first before opposing arguments (which logically flows bettwe))

2nd time:04:43, 15 December 2012‎ Lyonscc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,234 bytes) (-159)‎ . . (Switched order back to Proponents then Opponents, per WP convention to fully explore the topic before presenting opposing viewpoint sections)

3rd time:14:19, 15 December 2012‎ Lyonscc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,234 bytes) (+453)‎ . . (Please discuss changes on talk page. BLS Stats do show what is claimed, and supporting arguments run first in an article before dissenting ones (per convention))

4th time:19:09, 15 December 2012‎ Lyonscc (talk | contribs)‎ . . (22,058 bytes) (-1,081)‎ . . (→‎Proponents)— Precedingunsigned comment added byKomputerzrkool (talk •contribs)

The logical flow of arguments is summary, opposing view, THEN pro view as a counterargument. Here are 3 examples within wikipedia that list the opposing viewpoint right after the summary

Example, #1:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_finance_reform

Notice how in the "Campaign Finance Law" article, there is section titled "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission." In this section, the opposing viewpoint is listed immediately after the summary of the ruling and BEFORE the section listing Senator McCain and Mitch McConnell's pro viewpoints.

Example #2:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty

Notice how in the "Brady Bill" article, there is section titled "Movements towards humane execution," followed by a section titled "Abolitionism." Both of these viewpoints sections are opposing viewpoints and are listed BEFORE any pro viewpoint.

Example #3:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

Notice how in the "Euthanasia" article, there is a section titled "Euthanasia Debate." The very first sentence in this section is the viewpoint of euthanasia OPPONENT Ezekiel Emanuel. THEN, the viewpoint of Pro-euthanasia activists is listed.

There is clearly a pattern of listing opposing viewpoints first and then the pro viewpoint as a counterargument. THAT is the logical flow for an argument.— Precedingunsigned comment added byKomputerzrkool (talk •contribs)21:49, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Komputerzrkool, I realize posting on these boards can be quite thorny, but you're supposed to provide diffs to the reverts you allege, that the admin checking this can click on. Your list of reverts is just plain text — no diffs. (Not sure why there are two lists, but neither of them has any diffs.) Please check in the edit field of this page to see the code other people have used to create diffs, for instance in Lyonscc's post above. Or see the how-to pageWikipedia:Simple diff and link guide. Please edit your post to contain diffs, so that an admin can work with it.Bishonen |talk21:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC).

Page:List of One Piece episodes (season 15) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:OneBucPerson (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[2]

• 1st revert:[3]
• 2nd revert:[4]
• 3rd revert:[5]
• 4th revert:[6]

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

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

• Note. It's true that OneBucPerson violated 3RR. However, the edit-warring warning came after the fourth revert, and they have not reverted since. In addition, the editor has discussed the content dispute with you on the article talk page and on your talk page. Although I know nothing about the material, their argument seems at least reasonable (I'm not saying who's "right"). I'm not inclined to sanction the editor who has very few edits and a clean log. However, I'd like to ensure that they understand the policy, what they did violated it, and that they must be more careful in the future. To that effect, I will leave a comment on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk)15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:History of video game consoles (eighth generation) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Seqqis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[9]

• 1st revert:[10]
• 2nd revert:[11]
• 3rd revert:[12]
• 4th revert:[13]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[14]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[15] (pointing out in 3RR message that the inclusion of these systems has been discussed previously on the talk page of the article in question. (ed[16])

• Blocked – for a period of31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)15:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert:[17]
• 2nd revert:[18]
• 3rd revert:[19]
• 4th revert:[20]

As suspected sock puppetUser:99.19.17.4

• 1:[21]
• 2:[22]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[23] (3 warnings provided by 2 editors)

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

Comments:
The editor in question, a newWP:SPA appears to be a reincarnation/sock puppet of anon user 99.19.17.4 who tried to make similarly contentious edits, which were reverted, the day prior to the first appearance of Johnnyvictrola. The latter editor then repeatedly tried to remove large swathes of properly sourced content (e.g., a reference and critique by Dr. Harriet; product recall) from the article and inserted spam links (e.g.[25]) to an anonymously registered[26]unreliable advocacy site. The editor has ignored repeated warnings and engaged in a revert war without leaving a single edit summary or talk page comment. A lengthy if not permanent block seems warranted.Rhode Island Red (talk)15:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of24 hours. I am not going to impose an extended block based on the allegation that the IP and the registered account are the same person. The timing is suspicious, but the edits are different. The IP removed large amounts of material, whereas Johnny made relatively selective edits. Perhaps the agendas are the same, I don't know, but the 24-hour block is for the edit-warring only.--Bbb23 (talk)16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

A reasonable and measured response. Thank your for your prompt attention.Rhode Island Red (talk)16:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Talk:September 11 attacks (edit |subject |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:J3wishVulcan (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert:[27]
• 2nd revert:[28]
• 3rd revert:[29]
• 4th revert:[30]
• 5th revert:[31]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[32]

Comments:Comments promoting conspiracy theories were hatted. The user has reverted them backfour five times, and has accused the people who are not CTers of being government operatives trying to keep CTs off the page.ToaNidhiki0518:59, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. There is a discussion aboutUser:J3wishVulcan's conduct atWP:ANI. I will take no action on this report for the present.--Bbb23 (talk)19:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. I had already blocked before I saw Bbb23's note about ANI. I will post there also.Black Kite (talk)19:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:The Amazing Race 21 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Buck Winston (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert:[33]
• 2nd revert:[34]
• 3rd revert:[35]
• 4th revert:[36]

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

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

Comments:
I disagreed with the user's addition of a LGBT related category to a page. I also started a discussion, stopping short of violating the 3RR. However, another user reverted the editor in question and they reverted back which means they have reverted the same edit 4 times in less then 24 hours.Intoronto1125TalkContributions22:18, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• So it's all right for editors to tag team and disrupt an ongoing discussion? All I'm asking is that the category be left in place pending the conclusion of the discussion, which is how I understandWP:BRD is supposed to work. Is that really so much to ask? There's no harm in leaving it. Not to mention that this report is really nothing but the opposing editor looking to game the system to affect the argument.Buck Winston (talk)22:28, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
• And in looking at the evidence, the 4th edit was done at 22:12, the "notice" was posted to my talk page at 22:16 and this report was filed at 22:18. It seems clear that Intoronto is at the least being disingenuous and at best has deliberately violated procedure. Did I lose track of the number of revisions? Yes. Did any of the "bad behavior" occur after I was "warned"? No. This is bogus from start to finish.Buck Winston (talk)22:37, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment)Regardless, you reverted 3RR. Not knowing policy is NOT an excuse for violating it, although it may be an excuse to look over it this once. You've been editing after that without reverts. I'd say give him a break, as he stopped after the warning.gwickwire^talk_edits23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

How have I violated procedure? I left a notice as soon as I could then filed the report as you broke the 3RR rule. Personally attacking other users and then brushing of Wikipedia policies is going to do you no favours.Intoronto1125TalkContributions22:51, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You didn't violate procedure, but youdid report after warning but before another violation. It would have been better to wait until he reverted again after being warned to report.gwickwire^talk_edits23:08, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the best way to handle these situations is to issue the edit-warring warning after 3 reverts. Then, if the editor reverts a 4th time, you can file the report. That said, Intoronto, you didn't "violate" anything. As far as I can tell, you were trying to discuss the issue with the editor rather than focusing on reporting. A good thing, really. Buck, your response here is notably subpar, making unfounded accusations rather than taking responsibility for your own misconduct.--Bbb23 (talk)23:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of31 hours. After further investigation and thought, I find Buck's claim that he lost track not to be credible. In addition, he left harassing messages related to the cat on other editors' talk pages.--Bbb23 (talk)02:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Indigenous peoples (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Crock81 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to: all edits below are labelled as reverts

• 1st revert:[39]
• 2nd revert:[40]
• 3rd revert:[41]
• 4th revert:[42]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[43]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[44],[45]

Comments:
The steady series of reversions by Crock81—here 4 straight reverts of content added by others within 24 hours—is not helping solve any disputes on the article. I place a standard 3rr warning on Crock81's talk page. This was his reaction.[46]Mathsci (talk)10:06, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Response by Crock81: Mathsci, thank you for pointing to my response to your warning notice, which saves retyping it all here.

A minor point, but I reached consensus of sorts with Maunus, by me adding a wikilink to an article he raised in Talk as an issue, and in that his edit summary said "definition should not be a quote, since the usage is wider than the definition of any specific source - the definition here should encompass all of them", i.e.a wider, all encompassing usage would have to be a definition with a more general context (see below) which is what the definition I provided in fact does by encompassing broad areas of treatment thatought to be in the article: belonging to a certain country or region (literal "indigenousness"), distinctiveness, language, customs and indigenous attitudes. (definitions are always quoted since the wording is all-important).

At the time to the question hereYou've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? The answer was no, because Ubikwit expects editors to suspend life when editing, so after posting to the article Talk page he didn't wait for my reply, despite knowing the text was subject to reversion before, but still reverted! Common sense would have suggested that I would have replied since I had done so previously, had requested he talk to me before doing anything else again, and had endorsed EdJohnston‎'s advice to use the talk page for discussion.

I was reverted by Ubikwit without him attempting to talk on thethree previous occasions, after which he delivered a monologue to which I have now respondeda link to the discussion here.

Note that Irequested Ubikwit to discuss his claims and conflicts of opinion before, and it is as I pointed out to Mathsci the sameadvice given to him by EdJohnston‎.

The problem is that although Ubikwit loves to 'spar', he seems to loath reading. Notably he hasn't read the paper from which the, in his opinion, all-important "quoted definition" by Coats came from, never mind that it is in fact aparaphrase, which contradicts several sources, including in the article introduction and body, that no such definition in the international law exists!Coats, a professor of law and a direct participant (via Canadian First Nations) in the process by which the claimed 'definition' was produced, could not have arrived at a definition in 1999 after one was rejected in 1987!

Having scored a 'victory' of bringing me to the Edit warring noticeboard, Ubikwit has not done even so much as to read the entire 'new' old introduction which now contradicts itself!

His reversion of my more simpler and inclusive definition therefore contradicts the body of the article, which is a definite no no perWP:STYLE. I again reproduce here advice on article lead that,If its subject is definable, then the first sentence should givea concise definition: where possible, one that puts the article in context for the nonspecialist. Similarly, if the title is a specialised term, provide the context as early as possible.

In fact both conditions are true for the purpose of my reversions.

"indigenousness" constitutessui generis, i.e a specialised 'term' of identifying groups in law.

The subject isnot definable as of current time/date in the international law with which the UN is concerned, and by the consensus of the UN member organisations. I therefore offered a more general andconcise definition, quoted in full and referenced to a source generally available to those who may want to consult it. Coates is available only in hard copy, and only after a stack request from a major library.

The paraphrased definition is certainlynot representative of the "international ornational legislation", which wasn't even being addressed by Coats in the summary of his paper where the 'definition' is derived from.

The attempt to put the 'definition' in context in the introduction presents a context limited to "groups as particularly vulnerable to exploitation, marginalization and oppression by nation states" or "bypolitically dominant ethnic groups" resulting in "a special set ofpolitical rights in accordance withinternational law...set forth by international organizations" and that "The United Nations have issued a Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to guide member-state national policies in protecting thecollective rights of indigenous peoples to their culture, identity, language, employment, health, education and natural resources."

As I pointed out, "protecting collective rights" is only possible through binding legal mechanisms, which the Declaration is not. Repeating this 100 or 1000 times, or giving it Wikipedia endorsement will not make it more enforceable but only ridicule Wikipedia content for suggesting it.

The intl' organisationsnot having recognised the supposed 'definition' provided in the lead,where is the mention in the article of the indigenous cultures, self-definitions of identity, indigenous languages, indigenous means of production, indigenous methods for use of traditional medicines and techniques, indigenous transmission of knowledge (traditional education) and management of resources by indigenous communities it is supposed to protect within the context?

In fact even the one aspect of this article thatis covered in a 'daughter' article,Traditional knowledge, is still dominated by discussion of legal concepts! It's lack of balance has been noted forquite a while. The entireIndigenous peoples article is dominated by the political-legal perspective as a context.

But, is this theonly context for the article? Indigenousness is found discussed in many other disciplines, and multidisciplinary sources. The perception for the reader presented by Wikipedia is that the legal definition of indigenous peoples is theSOLE meaning of indigenousness despite the offered definition's goal to protect all those other facets of indigenousness! Confused?

Ubikwit's sole intention is therefore to include the supposed 'definition' because it is useful in his POV regarding inclusive criteria in the List of indigenous peoples which supports his POV on Jews vs Palestinians. Invited to discuss this criteria in contexts other than legally framed 'definition', he remained silent, and himself engaged in edit warring with User:Evildoer187

Therefore,a) because the subject is not definable, andb) because the context in which the article is being presented ignores many other important perspectives and violates theWP:NPOV, andc) the version offered by Ubikwit is internally contradictory to the lead confusing the reader, I reverted the persistent attempt by Ubikwit to politicise the slant of the article to reflect his beliefs as they pertain to his edit warring in theList of indigenous peoples, in accordance with the editing guidelines and conventions of Wikipedia StyleCrock81 (talk)12:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The massive wall of text written by Crock81 above about the content of the article appears to miss the entire point of this report, which is edit warring. Quite frankly, I don't carewhat you're edit warring about, I just care whether you're edit warring. The excuse that you are "editing the article" givenhere is invalid as the edits themselves make it clear that you are reverting. Given that you appear to not have reverted after you were warned about violating thethree revert rule, I am inclined to let this slidethis time. However, Crock81 should be aware that this courtesy may not be extended in future if you continue to edit war. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp12:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you care about themotivation for reverting listed in the last point after Therefore? I don't really need your condescension. You think I have nothing better to do than explain myself? I had not reverted because Ubikwit had responded on the talk page, as he was asked to do 'in the first place, and I will see where that brings us. However, as it stands, the article lead content is internally contradictory, and confusing to the reader, while disregarding WP:STYLE. Consider that. I would revert it time and again if only because I care about what I write, not thepoints I scoreCrock81 (talk)13:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

You'll be blocked if you do so. Your choice. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp13:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd rather be blocked for trying to do something right, than having given into to bullying and let millions read the article as it stands. There must have been a time when you thought this way also a long time ago, perhaps before you became an administrator.Crock81 (talk)14:30, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Kent Hovind (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Jinx69 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[55]

• 1st revert:[56]
• 2nd revert:[57]
• 3rd revert:[58]
• 4th revert:[59]
• 5th revert:[60]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[61]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[62]

Comments:
User is attempting to add material without consensus, and is personally attacking other users on the talk page, referring to their religions, or lack thereof.Dbrodbeck (talk)16:16, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours.The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい)20:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Stack Exchange Network (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Yparjis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to: N/A this has been going on and off for a while, with slightly different sections tho the 4 reverts are of an identical one

• 1st revert:[63]
• 2nd revert:[64]
• 3rd revert:[65]
• 4th revert:[66]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[67] but honestly the thing's been going on for so long (the warning was issued after the last revert)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Stack Exchange Network#Draft

Comments:

This is a slow-moving edit war by one user who's been reverting at least 3 people and whose virtually only purpose on Wikipedia has been to introduce the a criticism section on this article. There's a WP:DRN thread atWikipedia:DRN#Talk:Stack_Exchange_Network. I was asked as an uninvolved admin to look into the matter and left my findings at[68] to which the user has not substantially responded and has twice reverted me since (the first revert was while I was drafting my findings as I said I would in my edit summary) and replied[69]. Sadly I do not think there's much to do in the way of discussing with the user given his unwillingness to reply to the findings in detail and merely revert and revert.Snowolf^{How can I help?}06:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

That is not true, I have stated that WP:DRN should come to conclusion before removing the section. Otherwise the process is invalidated. WP:DRN is still open. Snowwolf is in violation of the process here. Also, your claims are unfounded, people do what they can , and apart from being actively interested on this page, I have contributed to other articles as time hasermitted and donated to wikipedia maybe more than i should. Getting involved is discouraging especially when admins do not admit to the processes and treat wikipedia as their own. BY THE WAY one of the users accepte that he is WP:NPOV and the second accepted that he has acted upon the first user , implying some knowledge, i.e. may not be WP:NPOV. I am still trying to find the third.80.218.174.215 (talk) 07:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)Yparjis (talk)07:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's only you arguing there for keeping this rather ridicolous section and the fact that there's a DRN thread open does not authorize you to edit war and violate 3RR. Of course you have contributed to other articles, but I'd like to note that in the last 6 months you've done 48 edits, 42 of which related to this Stack Exchange Network matter. I wholly reject your accusations ofWP:OWN on my part, this is the first time I've edited the article and I have no stake in the matter, I am merely looking at the facts as I see them, and I've presented a detailed report which you haven't responded to in any significant manner. I went point by point and explained why the section has to go, you just reverted me with a comment saying you won't respond in detail... And lastly, the third user would be me, don't know how you didn't notice that I've reverted you :PSnowolf^{How can I help?}07:51, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The fact that the DRN thread is open doesn't mean we ignore the policies. As for accusing me of having a bias, please see my replyhere.Bjelleklang -talk08:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours. The Criticism section appears to have a long and controversial history in the article. In terms of evaluating this report, I went back only to the beginning of December, specifically December 4, when another editor removed the section. Yparjis reverted and restored the section. Counting that as his first revert in a slow edit-war, Yparjis has 8 reverts through the present. Besides Yparjis, the two editors with the most reverts are Bjelleklang (4) and Snowolf (2). Bjelleklang became involved in the beginning of the month (December 6); Snowolf became involved very late in the game as a result of the DRN discussion. One other registered account reverted once removing the section. Effectively, Yparjis has reverted everyone, meaning he appears to have no support for his contributions. Yparjis's contention that the section must remain pending an outcome of DRN is baseless on at least two levels. First, there is no policy in support of it. Second, DRN, even when complete, is not binding.

Although content is generally irrelevant when evaluating an edit-warring report, part of my decision to block Yparjis was content-related. Criticism sections are inherently controversial. In my view, there is a higher threshold for sourcing criticism than for other material. Obviously, if this were a BLP, it would be a policy violation to have unreliably sourced negative material, but even when the subject is a company, we must be extra careful when we include criticism. Therefore, leaving out the criticism section until a consensus is reached is more prudent. I might also add that thecurrent criticism section (I haven't looked at each iteration) is remarkably poorly written, at times virtually unintelligible.--Bbb23 (talk)12:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

"two editors with the most reverts are Bjelleklang (4)" was there a ban initiated on him as well?

"Although content is generally irrelevant when evaluating an edit-warring report, part of my decision to block Yparjis was content-related" is there a policy on blocking based on content. Is that censhorship?Yparjis (talk)19:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"Criticism sections are inherently controversial" , but allowed right?

"In my view, there is a higher threshold for sourcing criticism than for other material" , implies that you are partially non WP:NPOV on taking the decision to block me. Is that in line with wikipedia policies?

"Obviously, if this were a BLP, it would be a policy violation to have unreliably sourced negative material, but even when the subject is a company, we must be extra careful when we include criticism." Obviously there is no BLP, and obviously prudency is your WP:NPOV. In that sense every controversial article (i.e. what someone does not like) should be left out in case a WP:DRN is filed. Is that indeed a wikipedia policy or is it your own personal way of doing things.

"poorly written, at times virtually unintelligible" did you get of being an administrator by insulting people?

It would be nice if these questions could be responded on a point by point basis.Yparjis (talk)19:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [[70]]

• 1st revert: [[71]]
• 2nd revert: [[72]]
• 3rd revert: [[73]]
• 4th revert: [diff]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[74]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On talk page:[75]

Comments:The user in question has been blanking and redirecting this page until they deem it to be worthy of being an article. Insists on bypassing AfD process instead and has not made any attempt to merge this into the article he is redirecting to. Has blanked it once and reverted it 3x now. As I have no involvement with the actual article outside of revising the blanking/redirecting I think someone else should step in. ThanksMrfrobinson (talk)18:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Well this shows a lack of intelligence..... The very first edit was a clean edit, not a reversion. There have been two subsequent reversions, after Mrfrobinson's actions to revert it to the article, which makes no sense since it is a stub. Both of my reversions came BEFORE his warning and I've not touched the article since.Paralympiakos (talk)20:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours. The first edit was a revert as it undid other editors' contributions (wiping them out, in fact). Therefore, there were three reverts. In addition, the third revert (06:19 on December 17) came after Mrfrobinson's warning (03:03 on December 17). Finally, Paralympiakos has been uncivil here (see above) and on their talk page.--Bbb23 (talk)01:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Hebron School, Ooty (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:Surajt88 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 17:01, 15 December 2012(edit summary: "removed poorly sourced and unsourced content. further sources to be added in talk.")
2. 10:23, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Administration */ rmv unverifiable names cited to dead links")
3. 10:30, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Notable Alumni */ rmv unverifiable names and names without supporting wikilinks")
4. 10:34, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Activities */ merge single-line-paragraphs into one paragraph")
5. 10:35, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "further merging")
6. 10:38, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "/* International Guest Scheme */ rmv unsourced paragraph")
7. 10:39, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "further merging")
8. 10:41, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Notable Alumni */ rmv unsourced paragraph")
9. 10:43, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "/* International Guest Scheme */ rmv accidental reinstating of previous removal")
10. 10:46, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "further merging")
11. 11:00, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Activities */ Adding section which was removed unintentionally")
12. 11:03, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "/* History */ split history section")
13. 11:04, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "fmt")
14. 03:15, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "kindly discuss in the talk page before blanket reverting. I have provided my rationale. n I am sure you provide a better rationale than copy pasting a paragraph from wp guideline. please "discuss" before reverting")
15. 03:19, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "+kalki koechlin with ref added by Alan.gilfroy in a previous edit")
16. 04:53, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "added sourced info to campus section")
17. 04:54, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Academics */ adding sourced info")
18. 04:57, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Residential Care */ typo")
19. 05:00, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Residential Care */ +info")
20. 05:02, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Sport */ +info")
21. 05:03, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Activities */ typo")
22. 05:04, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Sports */ heading-->sub heading")
23. 06:44, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* International Guest Scheme */ added in residential facility section")
24. 11:31, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Notable Alumni */ sorry. an extensive aearch for citation has 0 results. as such it may be added with a source to support it.")
25. 11:37, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Notable Attendees */ no online mentions for this info after an extensive search. please read WITH A SOURCE")
26. 11:47, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "+government recognized")
27. 11:51, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* History */ added info with source")
28. 12:33, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Music */ +sourced info")
29. 12:37, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Music */ correct wikilink")
30. 12:39, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Administration */ removing bulleting")
31. 12:39, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Administration */ +^{[citation needed]}")
32. 12:41, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Student Council */ section-->sub section")
33. 12:42, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Administration */ rmv duplicate^{[citation needed]}")
34. 14:14, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "rv unconstructive reversion")
35. 15:32, 18 December 2012(edit summary: "rv unexplained removal")

• Diff of warning:here

—Alan.Gilfroy (talk)16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The user is repeatedly deleting information which other users contribute. He deletes statements (which are neither malicious nor exagerrated)which are awaiting citable sources (tagged with "needs citation"). Considerable progress has been made in finding these sources. The user also degrades the article by making it difficult for viewers to read (merging paragraphs, deleting bullet points). He also seems eager to delete pictures which are clearly within rights of non-free criterion. Finally, the user's latest contribution use poor English (poor punctuation, grammar) often with a personal, non-neutral touch to it. Thanks for your assistance.Alan.Gilfroy^(talk)16:29, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. The "diff" above for warning him about edit-warring is not a diff and not a warning. You also didn't notify the editor as is required (see the instructions at the top of this page); I have done so for you. Both of you are edit-warring, by the way, but I'll give Surajt88 an opportunity to respond.--Bbb23 (talk)01:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
• Declined. I started scanning the diffs listed above but there doesn't seem to be much evidence of edit warring in them. The editor is merely making a large number of changes, many different ones, to the article. Except for the last few but there both of you are edit warring and neither of you seems to have crossed the line. THe matter has gone to DRN, so let's just leave it there. --regentspark(comment)03:10, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Survivor: Philippines (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Gogo Dodo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor%3A_Philippines&diff=528595848&oldid=528595484

• 1st revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor%3A_Philippines&diff=528595848&oldid=528595484
• 2nd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor:_Philippines&diff=528652968&oldid=528643906
• 3rd revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor%3A_Philippines&diff=528716575&oldid=528716263
• 4th revert:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Survivor:_Philippines&diff=528717646&oldid=528717287

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: SeeTalk:Survivor: Philippines#Final three listing order

Comments:

Yes, I'm reporting myself. I realized that I broke 3RR in 24 hours and have self-reverted[76]. I've also made kind of a mess at a WP:RFPP request (seethere). It leaves the article and the hidden comments (which I had added) in a contradictory state though. The beginning of the article is listed alphabetically and the later part of the article is per the hidden comment and talk page. I'm feeling rather sick after realizing that I've broken 3RR and am self-imposing a 24 hour "block" of sorts where I will refrain from making any edits for at least 24 hours after this report is posted. I know this report is rather unusual, but I feel it is a "the right thing to do" and admins are held to a higher standard. --Gogo Dodo (talk)00:58, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. A block at this point would be inappropriately punitive, and I would decline this report regardless of "who" you are. Admins are, by policy, held to higher standards in certain areas, but admins are also editors and can and do make mistakes. The important thing is what you do after you make a mistake. I don't see how you could have done any more. When you come back from your self-imposed "block", if someone hasn't already done so, you might want to clean the article up so it's no longer in a "contradictory state", without imposing your own content version (I haven't looked at the content dispute). Don't feel "sick"; rest up (breaks are good for all of us) and be more careful in the future.--Bbb23 (talk)01:24, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:A2 milk (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Srisharmaa (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:diff

• 1st revert:diff 7 Dec
• 2nd revert:diff 7 Dec
• 3rd revert:diff 7 Dec
• 4th revert:diff 7 Dec
• 5th revert:diff 7 Dec
• 6th revert:diff 7 Dec
• 7th revert:diff 14 Dec
• 8th revert:diff 15 Dec
• 9th revert:diff 15 Dec
• 10th revert:diff 15 Dec

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:7 Dec15 Dec

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

SectionTalk:A2 milk#Reasons to UNDO edits is the discussion

Also added about 26 "See also" links to A2 which "appear promotional" See userSpecial:Contributions/SrisharmaaMany reverts byuser:Jmh649 (Doc James)
Jim1138 (talk)19:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

We need to based stuff on proper secondary sources and we should not be using primary ones in an attempt to refute the secondary sources perWP:MEDRS.Doc James (talk ·contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine)19:12, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Although there's been no recent breach of 3RR (December 7 is too old), I believe Srisharmaa has edit-warred, in addition to disruptively editing other articles. However, they have made no edits since the filing of this report, and I'd prefer to wait for them to respond. I have left a note on their talk page telling them a response here is required.--Bbb23 (talk)21:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Adding my two cents here... I'm glad this EWN report was filed, I was going to file it myself had I not seen it filed already. There's strong evidence of a behavior issue withUser:Srisharmaa's editing. Despite multiple attempts by several editors over a period of time to get Srisharmaa to pay attention to Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines and requirements:[77][78][79][80] the editor continues to add or restore inappropriately sourced content and/or content wildly out of proportion to keep the article in compliance withWP:NPOV,WP:UNDUE in particular:[81][82][83]. This morning's "spamming" session by this editor added over two dozen see-also links back toA2 milk to a wide variety of articles, mostly inappropriate. Messages left at the editor's User Talk page raising concerns end up getting removed without comment. I agree that if this latest warning left at the editor's User Talk page doesn't result in the needed behavior change, sanctions would be appropriate.Zad6821:54, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No Brand Promotion intended:I would like to inform that "A2 milk" is not a brand to promote.It's a kind of milk which is genetically different from A1 milk.I am alsoagainst any Brand promotion in Wikipedia such as "a2 milk brand of a2 Corporation".In the article's Talk page I have discussed this in detail. I have urged to create a new article named "A2 milk brand" if it is necessary(as I could seesome Promotions of "a2 corporation" which seems to promote "A2 MILK TYPE" with its milk brand called "a2 milk").

I havenot added "See Also" pages which arenot related to milk.I think it is sensible to do so,so that readers may be aware of A2 milk.So,removing "A2 milk" from "See Also" in milk-related articles without valid reasonsdoesn't make sense.I hope the editor who reverted such editsrestores the "See Also" pages in the articles.Giving reasons regarding how it is inappropriate to add such "see also" pages in milk-related articles would be appreciated.Srisharmaa (talk)14:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Several editors have expressed a concern over the relevance of many of the articles to which you added See also links. There is now a discussion over which articles should have See also links here:Talk:A2_milk#.22See_also.22s_that_should_link_here.Zad6816:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment Srisharmaa is still reverting rather than discussingMilk diff,Soy milk diff,Raw milk diff Flagging some reverts as undoing vandalism although this might be unfamiliarity with twinkle.Jim1138 (talk)21:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of24 hours. Editor did not respond to offer on their talk page despite having contributedafter offer was posted.--Bbb23 (talk)23:12, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Person of Interest (season 1) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Page:List of Person of Interest episodes (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

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

Previous version reverted to:[84]

• 1st revert:[85]
• 2nd revert:[86]
• 3rd revert:[87]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[88]

Comments:
Editor told me I'm too new to complex articles, implying that shouldn't contribute meaningful information to Wikipedia. I'm just trying to contribute so that a consensus could be reached (even though already five editors are in favor of splitting article). But the editor wagesWP:OWN.Chihciboy (talk)19:47, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Editor has made minimal effort to discuss, I haven't violated 3RR (one cited revert is a self revert) and editor by his own admission doesn't know how to independently split article he attempted to split during an ongoing discussion and againstWP:SIZERULE. His comment above also makes clear he doesn't understand consensus, and this filing, edit warring. He is a new editor who appears to lack understanding of many of the policies surrounding this split, thus my comment, which he has rather badly misrepresented.Drmargi (talk)19:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Although the diffs are not listed properly, when one looks at the history of the main episodes article and the season 1 article, both Chihciboy and Drmargi are edit-warring, and I'm tempted to block them both. I don't want to hear anything aboutWP:SIZERULE. I want to hear from Drmargi as to why she keeps redirecting the season 1 article, removing the split tag, and adding back the material to the episodes article, despite the fact that there is an ongoing discussion on the article talk page with no consensus as to what should be done. The removal of the tag is the most serious problem. A few more comments. SIZERULE is a guideline, not a policy. Chihciboy did not "badly misrepresent" Drmargi's comment ("You are too new an editor to be making edit decisions, much less edits this complex"), just the inference he drew from it.--Bbb23 (talk)20:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That will require a fairly lengthy response, and I'm editing on an iPad at the moment. I'll be in transit for the next three hours minimum, then will respond when I can access a keyboard.Drmargi (talk)21:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Home now, and after a couple hours' driving and thinking time, I find I'm feeling more than a little uncomfortable with Bbb23's comments; actually, I feel put on the defensive, and sense not assumption of good faith on his part. He want to know why I did what I did, but in a manner that cuts off what I might potentially have said and suggests some pre-dispositon on his part. Frankly, given that, I'm tempted to request another, more impartial admin review this case.

That said, all I was doing was returning the articles to status quo, perWP:BRD, something I've seen any number of editors do in similar circumstances. Given the tag Chichiboy should have entered the discussion rather than attempt to split the article yet again; he failed to do so, so I reverted, period. He's a new editor, and as novices do, he was discussing via edit summary; a couple reverts got his attention, and he made a cursory attempt at discussion before rushing over here in an attempt to get his own way rather than to work with other editors toward consensus. I'm concerned that his rush to file here well in advance of any 3RR violation and in the presence of problematic editing of his own merits so little comment.

I do have to own to one mistake. I removed the tag (and I believe I've only removed it once) because I felt that it was pointy editing at the time it was added, and was creating more trouble than it solved. After a few minutes, I had a re-think, realized I'd made a poor decision, and reverted the edit, intending to go back to the last version with the tag. It wasn't that I looked at what I actually did a few minutes ago that I saw I didn't go back far enough. It can be tricky to see the full contents of the edit window on an iPad when the lower third of the screen is overlapping keyboard, and I hit the wrong radio button. So hands up there, I'll own to that mistake, but my intentions were good.

If Chichiboy wants to contribute to the reaching of consensus, he needs to act in a way that shows he is. Thus far his actions have been entirely independent of the ongoing discussion, save one sentence. I have yet to see any content in the various attempts at splitting (and I'm not the only one who has reverted them, I might add) other than regurgitation, generally word-for-word, of what's already in the main article. I hope that, somewhere along the line, some editor can present an argument for splitting a comparatively small article other than "but everyone does it!". My mother always had wise words about noses, faces and doing what everyone else does. --Drmargi (talk)01:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not an exemption from edit-warring. Given what you said about the tag, why haven't you restored it?--Bbb23 (talk)23:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

DId I say it was? I didn't restore the tag because this was ongoing, which I thought was protocol based on my reading of past cases, nothing more. I checked this numerous times, saw no response from you, and thought it best to leave well enough alone until you responded. A littleWP:AGF wouldn't come amiss, particularly from an admin. --Drmargi (talk)08:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now, since the edit war has not continued since 16 December. Both parties are advised not to revert again until the discussion atTalk:List of Person of Interest episodes#Split to season article has found an answer. If no consensus can be reached there, consider other steps ofWP:Dispute resolution. You might get some advice from the editors listed atWikipedia:WikiProject American television/Participants.EdJohnston (talk)05:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Template:Forms of government (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Sok-not (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

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

• 1st revert:[89]
• 2nd revert:[90]
• 3rd revert:[91]
• 4th revert:[92]
• 5th revert:[93] (as an IP)
• 6th revert:[94]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[95]

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

Comments:
It would also be helpful to have the template semi-protected.Frietjes (talk)18:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

this is possibly related toUser talk:Burham#Blocked as a sockpuppet, who is in the thread of the talk page.Frietjes (talk)18:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Frietjes is very obstinate person. As you can see I ask other editors and him specifically to express their arguments against including 'bureaucracy' in the template. Until know I got nothing but reverts. So who is the edit warrior? Please explain to Mr. Frietjes that reverting without a case (I mean just with POV) is vandalism. --Sok-not (talk)16:27, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Sok-not also appears to be edit-warring at thegovernment article (Sok-not admitted to being the IP I first reverted and stated an intent to revert the article againon my talk page). A cursory examination of their edits indicates that Sok-not is a sock of blocked editorBurham Serafin.SQGibbon (talk)18:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of48 hours. For sock issue, seereport.--Bbb23 (talk)22:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Secretariat (horse) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:Ace Mathias (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Time reported: 22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See overallhistory for reversion comments by three different editorsDiffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

1. 16:04, 12 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */This is perhaps his greatest achievement.")
2. 16:11, 12 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */ This is perhaps his greatest achievement.")
3. 16:54, 14 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */Perhaps this was his greatest achievement, right?")
4. 00:19, 15 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */ Perhaps his greatest achievement.")
5. 20:40, 17 December 2012(edit summary: "/* Posthumous recognition */ Mr. Austinuity, you don't think that that is a great achievement? Something no other horse has done as often? My source is The Life and times of Secretariat.")

—Montanabw^(talk)22:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]New account, has been warned on talk by three different editors (one different from the three reverting changes in article):User_talk:Ace_Mathias

Comments:

Normally, I wouldn't jump on a new user so fast, but this is a situation where we may have an account created solely for disruption. This editor managed to quickly figure out ref tags and feedback, may be a sock, but no idea who, so not enough evidence for an SPI.Montanabw^(talk)22:18, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He's a sock ofUser:KennethLMathias, at least. The old account was last used in October, though, and has no outstanding blocks or even warnings, so I'm not sure the sockpuppetry angle is really a problem; could be that he just forgot his password and created a new account or something.Writ Keeper⚇♔14:48, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

As long as this particular problem stops and doesn't start up again at the article in question or elsewhere, I'll be satisfied.Montanabw^(talk)19:54, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. I asked the editor to promise not to edit the article for at least 7 days to avoid a block. They did not respond. I'm assuming they saw it because they made one contribution after I posted it. However, based on your statement, Montanabw, I am going to close this and add a warning to my offer as they haven't edited the article and they appear to be withdrawing from the fray ("You're the boss"). Please reopen this report or notify me on my talk page if they edit the article again.--Bbb23 (talk)23:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

That seems an appropriate solution. Thanks.Montanabw^(talk)18:22, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Operation Pillar of Defense (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Guinsberg (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[96]

• 1st revert:[97]
• 2nd revert:[98][99]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[100]

Comments:Operation Pillar of Defense is clearly under the 1RR restriction ofWP:ARBPIA. Guinsberg already has an extensive blocklog on issues within the topic area:[101] (he was most recently blocked in October)

Blocked – for a period of5 days.--Bbb23 (talk)16:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:[102]

• 1st revert:[103],[104],[105]
• 2nd revert:[106]
• 3rd revert:[107]
• 4th revert:[108]
• 5th revert:[109]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[110] (actually a copyvio/spam warning)

[111]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[112]

Blocked – for a period of48 hours. Rracecarr, thank you for protecting the article. However, a tip for the future. The edit-warring warning should normally be given after the editor has reverted three times. The notification of this report is not a substitute for that. The idea is to prevent the 3RR breachbefore it happens. This particular case has unusual features because of the repeated copyright violations in addition to the edit-warring, and the probability that the user, aWP:SPA, is connected to the company ("this user has been vandalizing our site").--Bbb23 (talk)20:49, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Nelson H. Barbour (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:50.106.8.144 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[113]

• 1st revert:[114]
• 2nd revert:[115]
• 3rd revert:[116]
• 4th revert:[117]
• 5th revert:[118]
• 6th revert:[119]
• 7th revert:[120]

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

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

Comments:
Here's apretty clear statement of the editor's intentions.

—Bdb484(talk)20:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for one week because of the disruptive editing by the IP and by the one registered account, which is apparent meat puppetry. SeeSPI report.--Bbb23 (talk)21:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:The Final Page (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:24.34.224.171 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[123]

• 1st revert:[124]
• 2nd revert:[125]
• 3rd revert:[126]
• 4th revert:[127]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[128]

Comments:

This editor added some text yesterday. One editor (96.49.65.5) reverted the addition. Then the original editor re-added the text. Then a second, different editor (Eaglestorm) removed it. Then the original editor re-added a second time. I then removed it again and advised the editor to take it to the talk page. He ignored that and just re-added - for the third time. So I reverted that and posted a 3RR warning, again advising that he take it to the talk page. He ignored that again and reverted - for the fourth time.99.192.87.126 (talk)21:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk)21:39, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:Raspberry Pi (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:121.72.121.67 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[129]

• 1st revert:[130]
• 2nd revert:[131]
• 3rd revert:[132]
• 4th revert:[133]
• 5th revert (after getting An3-notice):[134]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I have not been actively editing this page -- I just watch it for vandalism -- so I have left any discussion about the conflict to the editors who are working on the page.

Comments: Mahjongg is active on the Raspberry Pi discussion board cited, and that from an engineering standpoint he is correct. I plan on improving the sourcing for the section with citations to manufacturer's datasheets after this edit war is put to bed. Notifying 121.72.121.67 now. --Guy Macon (talk)23:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – 31 hours.EdJohnston (talk)17:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (PAL region) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:67.219.94.174 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Previous version reverted to:[136]

• 1st revert:[137]
• 2nd revert:[138]
• 3rd revert:[139]
• 4th revert:[140]
• 5th revert:[141]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[142] (Warning was for similar conduct atList of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America) before it was semi-protected bySergecross73 (talk ·contribs))

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[143] (link to discussion on PAL region page)

Comments:
This user has made changes atList of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America) that have been reverted by editors at that page as being against consensus. User brings up other articles that have listings similar to what they desire, which has been dismissed asWP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. User is now edit-warring on the PAL region page since the North America page has been semi-protected against IP edits; oddly, they're editing the PAL page to reflect the way they claim the North American page shouldn't be. User has made claims they're autistic, but no proof to back that up. At this point, I think we're dealing with a troll. --McDoobAU9305:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Result: IP editor blocked 48 hours and article semiprotected for a week byUser:Ged UK.EdJohnston (talk)17:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This topic concerns a block evasion and not specifically a case of edit warring. I posted it here since there's no section for obvious block evasions, i.e., where a sockpuppet investigation is not necessary.

The userÆðð (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) is evading his block by editing through an IP (174.48.32.232 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)) and is again engaging in semi-vandal editing involving edit warring.This comment explicitly confirms his usage of the IP address. Please, take actions to prevent him from disrupting the project. --glossologist (talk)21:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

There has been no attempt to circumvent the ban, nor edit war - you have no case to make for either claim which is why you won't provide any specific examples of this "vandalism." The example you're providing is of the single instance in which I contributed to the same page with both accounts, and I immediately noted the error.

You've made no attempt to bring your edits up for discussion on the talk page, because you know they're tendentious and POV. This is why you aren't providing the contributions that led to this conflict.--174.48.32.232 (talk)23:35, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

SeeWP:EVASION andWP:ILLEGIT. Your account has been blocked because of edit warring and, as you've continued to make controversial edits (e.g. edit warring[144]) by using IP before your block has ended, the block can be reinstated.

As for the alleged vandalism,this massive deletion of the cited material without discussing it at the talk page by only giving brief comments in the edit summary can be arguably qualified as vandalism on the grounds of the personal bias, although I didn't say it was vandalism, I mentioned "semi-vandal editing". Messages and comments from other users note to the persistence of such behaviour.

Also, you should remember thatWP:Consensus obliges you to start a discussion at the article talk page if you get reverted after you make a new edit to a consensus version. --glossologist (talk)00:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Result:174.48.32.232 (talk ·contribs) blocked three months as an IP sock,Æðð (talk ·contribs), two months for evasion since he is editing as an IP to evade a one-month block of his main account.EdJohnston (talk)01:02, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Page:American Third Position Party (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

User being reported:Ngfan1 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)