Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [27]

Comments:
Some type of sock. Does not participate in discussions and continuously reverts at both Turkey and Northern Cyprus. Both articles are hotbeds of socking and edit-warring. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 13:45, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31h. Black Kite (talk) 14:31, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Unstoppable edit-warrior. De728631 (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
  • For the record: The ANI report has been retracted by the OP. De728631 (talk) 14:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thank you both. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:14, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [28]
• 2nd revert: [29]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [30]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [31]

Comments:
This article is under 1RR per ARBPIA. WLRoss made two reverts within an hour. He has been pushing the same issue for a while now [32] [33]. I asked him to self-revert but he refused. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:20, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Kenny Everett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 190.46.98.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [34]

• 1st revert: [35]
• 2nd revert: [36]
• 3rd revert: [37]
• 4th revert: [38]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [39]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [40]

Comments:
The IP has made a series of edits to several articles using sometimes uncivil edit summaries. He/she seems to be experienced despite having had no edits on this account before 2 December. He/she believes that it is POV - and hence contrary to WP policy - to make any statements at all in article leads about what people are "best known" for, even when this is clearly explained in the article and essentially uncontentious. The edits have focussed particularly on Kenny Everett and his occasional co-star Cleo Rocos. He/she has not engaged in any talk page discussion on these edits, despite requests to do so, except at their own user talk page with this edit. They have contravened WP:3RR at both the Everett and Rocos articles. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:45, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

1. [41]
2. [42]
3. [43]
4. [44]
5. [45]

Big fat section repeatedly added on the claimed influences of Alger & Park on the induction motor. Removed by three independent editors. Some discussion at talk, but the re-adding continues despite. Warnings blanked and the content immediately re-added. Newish editor (1500 edits since 2010), seems to be based on a misunderstanding of significance and sourcing, let alone 3RR. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Note. I agree with your analysis, and it's a clear violation of 3RR. However, the last comment in Cblambert's last contribution (to the article talk page) stated, "So goodbye for now", which may mean that the editor has given up editing/reverting on the article, despite their disagreement with other editors. As I write this, the editor has also stated on their talk page: "Sorry. I have bowed out of the issue, through I disagree completely." Although both statements are very recent, blocks should not be punitive; therefore, at this point, I'm taking no action. If the editor resumes warring in the article, please update this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Cblambert has continued to edit the article but he has not restored the contentious claim about Philip Alger being 'Mr Induction Motor'. Others had requested third-party sourcing for this claim. So the revert war is not continuing. Cblambert appears to have technical knowledge in this area. EdJohnston (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing. Nor has Andy updated this report. I am therefore going to close it.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Ayn Rand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.0.111.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [46]
• 2nd revert: [47]
• 3rd revert: [48]
• 4th revert: [49]
• 5th revert: [50]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [51]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [52]

Comments:

Based on the content of the edits and edit summaries, this is probably the same editor already indef blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pc1985/Archive. --RL0919 (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:05, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Human (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smohammed2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [53]

• 1st revert: [54]
• 2nd revert: [55]
• 3rd revert: [56]
• 4th revert: This is just editwarring, with aggravating circumstance of no response to attempts to communicate

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [57][58]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since user did not communicate in editsummaries, I thought it would be easier to contact him on his usertalk page which I did twice with no response. [59][60]

Stale. Re-report if there is a resumption.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: 1
• 2nd revert: 2
• 3rd revert: 3
• 4th revert: 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Level 4 warn given but reverted here

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

Comments:

The user has attempted to add the "Soul" genre to this page before, but following a discussion on the talk-page, she agreed not to. However, the user has recently decided to start adding back, and I decided to revert her edits with a edit summary notice and a talk page discussion. However, she persisted and didn't provide any reliable sources for the change, and continued to POV-push on the issue. I decided to warn the user after she reverted my removal twice, and from there we have been involved in an edit war. —Jennie | ☎ 19:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Hiya...Soul was originally included and this supported by lots of neutral and independent sources. e.g http://www.last.fm/music/Misha+B/+tags, http://www.dvdlyrics.com/lyrics-m-misha_b.htm, http://hmv.com/hmvweb/displayProductDetails.do?sku=484410, http://www.qxmagazine.com/feature/the-queen-b/ url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UlWJxY_49Y http://www.flavourmag.co.uk/sneak-peak-shots-from-misha-bs-debut-single-home-run/ http://sosogay.co.uk/2012/singles-of-the-week-16-july-2012/ http://www.dailystar.co.uk/playlist/view/263170/X-Factor-star-Misha-in-B-line-to-top/%7Caccessdate=21 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gu0AYRj7mxA http://www.last.fm/music/Misha+B

Unfortunately this artist has only released 2 singles so far, but has covered several dozen other tracks on youtube (not including xfactor).

The has been no discussion just threats by Jennie and possible misuse of her rollback rights. I do not see why her opinion is more correct than mine, least i supply verifiable evidence. The are two sides to a 'edit war' ,I would welcome a third opinion....Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The full discussion went on here in which I explained why I reverted your edits, you need reliable sources to support your view; blogs, YouTube, etc. don't form part of this. Also, there was no explicit mention of the artist being of the soul genre, rather, mentions of songs sounding "soulful" etc. —Jennie | ☎ 20:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. Jennie, your initial comment "from there we have been involved in an edit war" is absolutely correct. So, is your request that you both be blocked because there's really no excuse for either of you. (Zoe, please remember to sign your contributions here.)--Bbb23 (talk) 20:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Which of the above are blogs?? (the are many many expert blogs, that i have not included, that put her in that genre. Youtube can be a crediable resource. What reliable sources have you at all presented to support your view??. The are exlicit mentions, look at the sources again please....Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23: No, I'm trying to find a resolution to the issue. I tried to discuss it with Zoe and point her in the right direction of policy, but she chose to ignore it and added it anyway, that is why I reverted.

Zoeblackmore': Zoe, YouTube is a video sharing website and doesn't verify what genre an artist is or form part of reliable musical journalism. —Jennie | ☎ 20:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Jenny you engaged in no discussion, you simply said that you were correct and threatened me with tags. Youtube is used by many reputable sources as a medium, from the BBC to SB.TV. In fact my list of sources are from August 2012, the have been many supporting articles, and filmed interviews, since then which i have not included....Zoebuggie☺whispers 20:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The discussion (I started yesterday) is here, I only warned you today. YouTube is used a video-sharing site for both of those, not as reliable secondary source. —Jennie | ☎ 20:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

another unbiased source stumble upon http://www.allgigs.co.uk/view/artist/71723/Misha_B.html ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 22:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

allgigs.co.uk is a website for ticket sales, not for supplying information about artists' style. It's going to be difficult to find sources to support soul as a genre, considering 1 mixtape and 2 single releases (and that is why I advised you to bring this up after the album release). If Bryan was active in this genre, there would be a wide variety of secondary sources saying so, and what I am trying to say is, at the moment, there isn't. —Jennie | ☎ 23:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Although it's great that the two of you are now discussing the content dispute, it's really not necessary to do it here. My suggestion is you keep it all on the article talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Just a quick reply to Jenny. The are indeed a wide variety sources which i have listed above. Yes Currently the are no major first division music sources that define this artist genre, just the ones we have got, so maybe we ought to remove all her genres, if Soul is removed, as the others have even less reputed sources? ...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:30, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Bbb23 i wish the was an unbiased/independent etc third party who could clear this little dispute up :) sadly i dont think we are going to agree on our own :(...Zoebuggie☺whispers 23:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Difficult-to-resolve content disputes are fairly common. All I can suggest is dispute resolution mechanisms to assist you.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Fully protected for a period of 48 hours, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Kid Icarus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

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

Time reported: 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 14:03, 4 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 526326035 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) Nothing there, just blog links")
2. 15:51, 4 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 526340989 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) I repeat there is nothing that can verify the game.")
3. 18:42, 4 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 526360920 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) Disagreeable aren't you?")
4. 20:44, 4 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 526371864 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) The fan game and vital point pair together like dreadlocks")
5. 06:20, 5 December 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 526396535 by ArealFatRabbit (talk) You can't deny facts")

—Mephistophelian (contact) 19:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Note. I've combined the two reports and notified both editors of this discussion. I realize the reverts here are only of Deltasim, but the article history is fairly easy to follow. I'll wait a bit to see if either editor has anything to say, but the war is rather stark.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I can vouch for the fact that the input of the fan game has been resolved thanks to Izno, but User:ArealFatRabbit is constantly reverting a vital point regarding the fan game's plagiarism, denying its placement despite the credible sources. The reverts that occur immediately after my own, makes me suspect the user has a bot doing it for him. I have been waiting for a discussion, but the lack of reply as Izno suggests is a definite conflict of interest, one of the reasons being to promote the game for advertisement sake. I will indeed make discussion when it begins properly. Deltasim (talk) 20:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

In regards to conflict of interest, Deltasim, are you not the user "Will" on the VGMaps.com forums? I can write claims on my blog(s) about any number of subjects but they sure shouldn't be included in an encyclopedia and are not relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArealFatRabbit (talk • contribs) 20:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Comment, though he may not know it ArealFatRabbit has actually acted within BLP policy here, this edit is a BLP vio in that it states that some game content was plagiarized by some fans and this is sourced to two WP:SPS Darkness Shines (talk) 20:56, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks, DS, that's very helpful.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:07, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Firstly you didn't explain the removal of the content and secondly guessing who I may be doesn't really concern you. Of course if you wish to write irrelevant subjects on Wikipedia, that would be blatant spamming. Any threats you have to offer is not going to deter me in the least. Deltasim (talk) 21:04, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if that is you then that would be a Conflict of interest, and blogs Reliability are sometimes called into question. Edit summaries should be used to describe changes and dont forget an article talk pages should also be used to discuss changes. MisterShiney ✉ 21:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Noted, however this has already been discussed on the talk page in great lengths. Going forward I will include edit summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ArealFatRabbit (talk • contribs) 21:34, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. There's been no activity for almost a day. The version in place does not have BLP issues. Despite threats (above), Deltasim has not edited the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:29, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Star Trek: Klingon Academy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eik Corell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [61]

• 1st revert: [62]
• 2nd revert: [63]
• 3rd revert: [64]
• 4th revert: [65]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User was recently blocked for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this dispute. I am merely reporting that the edit war is occurring.

Comments: I just warned the IP about edit warring, so I don't think any actions need to be taken against him or her.

• Page protected for a period of one day. Let me know if edit warring continues upon expiry and I'll consider blocking. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've laid out my argument on the article talk page, and I've made an entry on WP:DR. I've also made an entry on the WP:VG talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 16:40, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Note: You posted at WP:DRN. There is a very specific format we prefer to use at DRN, and as such, your request was declined. Hasteur (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: link

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:Prefers reverting before discussing, substantial unconstructive edits bordering on vandalism such as, 1 and 2, often makes personal attacks in the edit summary 3, and also made unsourced accusations at the US Armed Forces' article 4. Willingness to participate in talk page discussion is lacking
-A1candidate (talk) 16:02, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Most recently User:YvelinesFrance ignored/spurned opportunity to engage in consensus building on the Gangnam District talk page and reverted with POV laden edit comments. His/her own talk page is not as clean as it looks because numerous advisories and warnings have been removed. S/he does not understand how the DRN works as indicated by a statement that administrators govern the DRN. (The DRN discussion in question was closed prematurely based on ill-conceived arguments and is OBE by other resourced material.) I'd say YvelinesFrance exhibits 6 or 7 of the 14 characteristics of a WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. With a relatively short and limited edit history [66] that has engendered numerous messages and warnings, I'd say s/he is getting off to a very bad start as a contributor.--S. Rich (talk) 16:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

This is a joke, I have already discussed the issue on the talk page of the article Gangnam District numerous times and the issue has even gone to the dispute resolution noticeboard as seen here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_52#Gangnam_District. Despite the user A1candidate's content being deemed unsuitable for the article as per the DRN, he continues to put it in incessantly. His friend Srich happens to be a military man himself, according to his user page, and hence is completely biased in this matter and his opinion should not be of much value (since the issue is about irrelevant information of the military being put in the article). I have talked to this user A1candidate numerous times and he is uninterested in talk and only in promoting the military in an article that has nothing to do with it, if anyone should be blocked from editing, it's him. YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:44, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

As for the 'numerous messages and warnings' many if not most of them come from A1candidate and his friend Srich who seem more intent on intimidation rather than collaboration. YvelinesFrance (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. A couple of notes about WP:DRN. It is not binding, and it is not "governed" by administrators.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:55, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Vitamin B12 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David_Martin_Zeegen_Roth (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [67]

• 1st revert (manual revert): [68]
• 2nd revert: [69]
• 3rd revert: [70]
• 4th revert: [71]
• 5th revert: [72]
• 6th revert: [73], checked as a minor edit

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here, SBHarris criticizes David Martin Zeegen Roth's use of primary sources.

Comments:
User has been reverted by multiple editors for adding WP:PRIMARY sourced and sometimes WP:FRINGE sourced material against even vegan admittance that vegetables are not the best source of B12. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Also note that he continues to assert that a general and universal group of scientists believe that there are adequate plant sources of B12, using a study that tested only 30 subjects and was not directly about B12, (as previously noted by SBHarris). And he has yet to acknowledge that he's edit warring, assuming immunity because the "facts" are supposedly on his side. We've got ourselves an edit warring POV-pusher here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:25, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Doo-wop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.80.164.205 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [75]

• 1st revert: [76]
• 2nd revert: [77]
• 3rd revert: [78]
• 4th revert: [79]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]

Comments:
IP is adding clearly promotional material about a group, Kenny Vance and the Planotones, who may be notable but not that notable, to the article on the Doo-wop genre. They have been warned, and other editors on the talk page have supported the removal of the material. IP has not engaged in any discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

According to the IP's own Talk page, he appears to be Kenny's son or some other male relative (Ladd Vance). He's just reinserted the (unsourced) content again, and I've reverted. Also see my note on the Doo-wop Talk page re: Vance. --Seduisant (talk) 21:43, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: David Hammond (director) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Walledro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [82]
• 2nd revert: [83]
• 3rd revert: [84]
• 4th revert: [85]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned initially by TRPOD and myself later

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: various including this one by TRPOD

Comments:

User's only edits are to add blp-violating material to this article, and was previously blocked for edit warring. a13ean (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

to further the above comments, was previously blocked for edit warring for attempting to insert the same BLP claims into this very article. based on comments on the talk page and their and my user pages, User:Walledro may be trying to follow Wikipedia policies, but it seems they have a personal agenda that is clouding their ability to edit in a neutral fashion on this article. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

the user is continuing to edit war, now to include a negative review of a play, when the subject was merely the playwright and the review castigates the particular production, over which of course, the playwright cannot be held responsible for anything but the "length" of the play (an adaptation of Tom Jones is probably always going to be "lengthy") -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:50, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why the user was not long ago blocked indefinitely. WP:SPA whose history has been removal of sourced content and/or addition of negative, poorly sourced, or WP:BLP content. The referenced criticisms don't appear in the linked sources, which themselves don't look very weighty to start with. There is no constructive intent. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, I've requested page protection [86]. This has been going on since October, and no BLP needs to be persistently subject to this. 99.153.143.227 (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 168 hours Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Turkish invasion of Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: E4024 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: Revision as of 12:04, 6 December 2012 E4024 (Undid revision 526594596 by Dr.K. All commanders were from Greece; so I removed Greek military junta's puppet junta in Cyprus from combatants. Makes no sense.)
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 12:12, 6 December 2012 E4024 (This is the real picture. Added the only Greek Cypriot military activity, of those who massacred civilian Turks during the operations. I had to use another revert for not being given 5 minutes to complete the editing process.
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 14:16, 6 December 2012 Undid revision 526699483 by 79.160.40.10 The Turks who owned the island for centuries do not even have the right to name their villages where they were majority or lived exclusively? Trying to erase them from history
• 4th revert: Revision as of 16:21, 6 December 2012 E4024 (Undid revision 526705715 by Athenean There is no obligation for that.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User gets frequently blocked for edit-warring. Just came out of one on 2 December: Edit-warring_block

Multiple issues involved. See below.

Comments:
User keeps reverting multiple users on multiple issues as long as their edits do not conform to his expectations. He also regularly insults his opponents calling them any combination of "nationalist", "biased" and "warriors", as in this example. What concerns me the most is the constant edit-warring of his editing style which seems not affected by his frequent edit-warring blocks. Also of concern are the constant attacks against his opponents including the use of edit-summaries to insult them. Clear WP:BATTLE mentality. Recent example: Revision as of 14:12, 6 December 2012 E4024 (→‎Combattans in Infobox: And elsewhere, those who combat to show Greeks nice and Turks not...). Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Comment: The user reverted my courtesy notice about this report. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:36, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected Page protected for 48 hours. I urge someone to levy a block for incivility on E4024; the reason I'm not doing it myself is his incivil remarks to me at his talk page after I blocked him last week for edit warring at this article. Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

@Nyttend: Which "incivil remarks" to you, Nyttend? --E4024 (talk) 23:03, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [87]

• 1st revert: [88]
• 2nd revert: [89]
• 3rd revert: [90]
• 4th revert: [91]
• 5th revert: [92]
• 6th revert: [93]
• 7th revert: [94]
• 8th revert: [95]
• 9th revert: [96]

Comments: I have inserted comments on my editorial policy on my talk page, which MrOllie has seen, because he left a long message there. However, that did not keep him from continuing deleting my contributions. I reported above only on the page Reptiles, but I have had similar problems with him on several other pages, such as Tiktaalik, Mesosaur, Mesosaurus, Polydactyly in early tetrapods, and others. I would like to emphasize that I am a professional scientist (paleontologist and systematist), and that I thought that I was doing Wikipedia a favor by contributing discussions of recent developments in the fields in which I have an expertise. See my talk page for more details. MrOllie does not seem to realize that I can judge what is justified or not, on such pages; after all, I am Chief Editor of the Comptes Rendus Palevol, Associate Specialty Editor of Frontiers in Genetics, and I serve on several other editorial boards (Zoologica Scripta, Journal of Evolutionary Biology, Contributions to Zoology, etc.). One of the papers for which I have added reference is indeed mine, but I think that its inclusion is fully justified; since its publication in Early View version on the Historical Biology web site, it has been the most downloaded paper. The other papers that I have added to various pages (whether mine or not) are similarly relevant papers. See my home page for more details. I was going to give up working for Wikipedia altogether when another user told me that I could ask you to intervene to stop this systematic destruction of my work. Note that in the example above, Skeptical Raptor also undid my work a couple of times, but since then, he seems to have given up (for good, I hope). And others have helped me restore my work, for which I thank them (Peter M. Brown and Medeis, for instance).

Finally, I am sorry for the technical errors that this report surely contains; I am relatively new at contributing to Wikipedia and my knowledge of html code is rather elementary. If need be, I hope that others can fix this. Michel Laurin (talk) 22:35, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. There has been no violation of 3RR or of edit-warring by MrOllie. He has reverted you twice; other editors have also reverted you. The problem appears to be your insistence in adding material cited by your own publications. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia as a self-claimed expert, you must follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. My suggestion is you either first explain what you want to add to an article on the article talk page OR you add the material, but as soon as you are reverted, you proceed to the article talk page to discuss it per WP:BRD. Otherwise, you may have significant disputes on Wikipedia. You've made only 83 edits since first registering in April 2011. Take it slow. Ask questions. Don't insist.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:16, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Insistence? Dr. Laurin is an expert, and the Michel Laurin article provides adequate backing for this. More can easily be provided. He is reporting work by the top experts in his field of which, as it happens, he is one. Wikipedia is very fortunate to have an editor so familiar with current research.

I can understand that you do not find MrOllie guilty of edit warring. Edit warring generally takes place when editors disagree strongly about an issue, and that is not what is going on here. Rather, MrOllie seems motivated by an antipathy toward Michel Laurin that manifests itself in reversions of his contributions to at least five different articles as well as in the deletion of his name here from the list of Robert R. Reisz's students. The only justification he has offered in edit summaries is that Michel Laurin's contribution reflect a conflict of interest, but Laurin has cited only work contained in highly-regarded peer-reviewed journals; WP:COI does not prohibit such a citation "if it is relevant and conforms to the content policies."

If you are going to accuse him of failing to conform to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, you owe him, at minimum, a specification of the policy or guideline he has failed to conform to! And if you are powerless to address harassment that is not technically edit warring, say so!

Peter Brown (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

MrOllie may be being disruptive here. We need editors of Michel Laurin's calibre, we don't need to have them driven away. If MrOllie's behaviour is not technically edit-warring, then this dispute can be addressed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Somalis in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Rageh Omaar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Nadifa Mohamed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Category:Black British writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Black British (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Somalis in the United Kingdom Previous version reverted to: [97]

• 1st revert: [98]
• 2nd revert: [99]
• 3rd revert: [100]
• 4th revert: [101]
• 5th revert: [102]
• 6th revert: [103]

Rageh Omaar Previous version reverted to: [104]

• 1st revert: [105]
• 2nd revert: [106]
• 3rd revert: [107]

Nadifa Mohamed Previous version reverted to: [108]

• 1st revert: [109]
• 2nd revert: [110]
• 3rd revert: [111]
• 4th revert: [112]
• 5th revert: [113]

Category:Black British writers

Middayexpress, then unable to accept in WP:GOODFAITH that Nadifa Mohamed was a British writer who identified 'as a black person' switched tactics and, in a veritable definition of defying WP:GOODFAITH tried to 'Game the system' by getting the entire, well established category 'Black British writers' deleted: [114]

• Discussion of 'Black British writers': [115]

Black British

Middayexpress has also attempted to WP:GAME the system by removing historical references to Somalis identifying and identified as black people from the 'Black British' page.

Black British Previous version reverted to: [116]

• 1st revert: [117]
• 2nd revert: [118]
• 3rd revert: [119]
• 4th revert: [120]

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

Middayexpress and I have discussed this issue ad infinitum on the talk pages of the various articles.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Somalis in the United Kingdom talk page: [122] [123]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Rageh Omaar talk page: [124]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Nadifa Mohamed talk page: [125]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Black British talk page: [126]

Comments:
User:Middayexpress always edits from the rigid WP:NPOV position that: Somali people are not black and that Somali people are fundamentally 'Asian' or 'Arab' rather than 'black' or 'African'. And, to that effect User:Middayexpress suppresses as much reference to other black people with regard to Somalis as possible - replacing it with material emphasising difference, separation or conflict between Somalis and other black, and/or African people. This can mean, for example literally hiding the flags of other African countries who have contributed to the African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia. (My edits to that effect on the Page War in Somalia (2009–present) page were themselves hidden by use of WP:REVDEL. [127].)

User:Middayexpress has consequently advocated the position that Somalis in the UK identify as 'Arab' - even though his/her own sources claimed that only 1% of Somali-born census respondents identified as Arab - the other 99% identifying as either 'black African' or 'other black background'. My position is not as simplistic as 'Somalis are black' - but is rather that Somalis are African (with cultural links to Arabia, like very many African countries), and, just as do many Africans self-identify as 'black', so too there is documented evidence of some Somalis identifying as both 'black' and as 'African' as can be seen from my talk page citations. Furthermore, I make no claims about 'black' identity deriving from a specific genealogy or a specific location. I do not assert, as does User:Middayexpress the existence of a 'race' called 'black' to which an individual either does or doesn't belong. I regard, black as fluid, non-exclusive social identity that some people sometimes accept, confer or reject. I do acknowledge that there is also evidence of some Somalis sometimes rejecting a black or African, or even Somali identity, and claiming an 'Arab' or 'Asian' identity. But, this is no reason to remove evidence that points the other way. However, Middayexpress's edit warring, often calculated to evade the WP:3RR rule is all about avoiding consensus and rigidly sticking to the line, at all times, and in all circumstances that 'Somalis are not black' – removing, reverting or replacing anything that seems to suggest a more nuanced, consensus based approach. Ackees (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Predictably, the situation is not at all as User:Ackees has made it out to be (for the facts on the content dispute, please see the discussion here and here). I'm also not an administrator with access to the RevDel tool, so I don't see how I could've "hidden" this user's (clearly visible [128]) edits on the war article alluded to above or any other page. This is precisely the kind of absurdity, opportunism and dishonesty I have to deal with. Likewise, none of the above sets of difs are three revert violations; some are even spaced days apart, as the time stamps show. On the other hand, Ackees did actually violate 3RR within just 2 hours on the Somalis in the United Kingdom article (c.f [129], [130], [131], [132]). I opted to give him the benefit of the doubt and not report him for it, as I was hoping actual discussion -- which I had to start -- would be fruitful. I just casually informed him of it in passing (c.f. [133]). Clearly, this was a mistake. It would appear that Ackees is also unaware that this board is not the venue to carry on content disputes, and that "when reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized", as stated at the top of this page. Middayexpress (talk) 18:23, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

• Note. I see no clearly sanctionable conduct in any of the articles and one category listed. I am NOT going to get into the bias dispute; that is rarely relevant in this forum. Of the pages listed, Somalis in the United Kingdom is the worst, a slow, fairly long-lasting edit-war between the two editors, the last edit occurring about 10 hours ago. Rageh is stale, no editing since November 30. Nadifa Mohamed, no editing since December 3. The category has no edit-warring; Midday nominated it for deletion. Black British is closest to the Somalis article, but not as bad. You both need to spend less time in these articles. I'll leave this open for a bit in case anyone wants to say anything constructive, or if another admin wants to comment. (As an aside, I see no rev/dels, and Midday is right - they couldn't do it if they wanted to.)--Bbb23 (talk) 23:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems there is a long-running dispute between Middayexpress and Ackees which is most evident at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom, where the charges and countercharges have an unpleasant tone. Admins don't have a mandate to pick who is right about this dispute, but we could issue sanctions for anyone who continues to revert without following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. The best way to approach this would be a centralized WP:RFC where somebody could present all the different questions about whether Somalis identify as black, or should be considered black for purposes of these articles and categories. We could close with a warning to both parties that any further reverts on the articles listed above which are not in accordance with an RFC would lead to a block. EdJohnston (talk) 01:50, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed that you read that talk page discussion (I started to and then stopped). I'll take your word for the "unpleasant tone"; given the obvious fact that these two editors don't get along, it doesn't surprise me. I have no problem with your suggestion as to how to close the report.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I suggest leaving this report open for a while to see if either party wants to comment. There is a glimmer of a negotiation at the bottom of Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom, beginning with a comment by Ackees dated 17:54, 6 December 2012 (UTC). It does appear that Middayexpress has rejected the proposal, though. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I personally agree with Ackees. omalis are NOT arabs. The majority dont speak fluent arabic, and the majority have features differing from arabs. The main thing they have in common i the religion, but thats about it. I say Middayexpres should be cautioned. Pass a Method talk 15:08, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

I left a response on the article's talk page, though the issue is best explained by User:Abdirisak's post there. I should also point out that User:Pass a Method above, who did not participate in the discussion, nonetheless reverted back to the other version [134]. I contacted him on his talk page for an explanation, a message which he later deleted [135]. Instead, he left a short note on the article's discussion page asserting that he "explained some specific objections in [this] 3rr thread", and that he "specifically oppos[es] removal of content about Somali self-description". The irony is that his revert actually removed the only reliably sourced general description of Somali self-identification. Middayexpress (talk) 16:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Result: Middayexpress and Ackees are both warned. They may be blocked if they continue reverting on the question whether Somalis should be considered black, unless an WP:RFC or other talk page consensus has first reached a conclusion on that question. EdJohnston (talk) 03:07, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [136]
• 2nd revert: [137]
• 3rd revert: [diff]
• 4th revert: [138]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [139]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [140]

Comments:

Editor keeps refactoring the Talk:Andrew Wakefield by deleting talk page comments. He's gaming the system by warning me of 3RR, even though comments in the Talk Page shouldn't be deleted, except under ver specific circumstances. This editor also continues to engage in personal attacks, dropping comments on my User talk page that aren't relevant. In addition, he apparently can read minds and thinks I'm angry. This editor is a WP:SPA that isn't contributing to the project in a civil manner.

SkepticalRaptor (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a case of pot calling kettle black. Happy to put my side if someone will point me in the right direction to do so.Nernst (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Note. The article talk page is a ridiculous mess, and neither editor is blameless. The number of warnings Skeptical posted on Nernst's talk page is absurd. You both are treating the article talk page like your own battleground. @Skeptical, don't make inappropriate comments; you were reverted by an admin another editor and still restored your comment. Nernst, don't move comments from the article talk page to Skeptical's talk page. I don't know what to do with either of you. I'd sanction you both but I'm too tired and am not sure that's the right thing to do. So, I'm leaving this note for any other admin who reviews this report and going off-wiki for a breath of fresh air.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:25, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

We probably both thought it was respectively the right thing to do. Again i'm not overly familiar with wiki processes but would suggest a farcical barnstar to both editors and a special citation on lamest edit war page as a start. Deep breaths, i hear yoga is good. Nernst (talk) 02:40, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Okay guys, I'm making allowances because yNernst is new enough to be allowed some rope. Your disruption of this talk page has ended? The next one to mess around gets a 24 hour break. Is that clear and reasonable? Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It's reasonable but not clear. To be honest I'd prefer us both to be blocked together with a polite suggestion of how we can each edit better. More than anything i'd be grateful an explanation here or on my talk page as to what I'm being accused of. I think i'm entitled to that following the threat of a further block.

I get blocked for reverting so leave a gap and then try to do things properly while my requests for help are ignored. I'm asked to present a clear logical argument but no one else feels the need to do the same (except WLU on BLP noticeboard). I then get accused of being disruptive. I answer a question and get screamed at for making personal attacks. I move talk comments on behaviour to the user pages and but get reported for 3RR and get threatened with a block, I move them back and they get deleted (WTF!?).

I don't mind following the letter of rules or their spirit but dislike having the ground shifted under my feet or people telling me i'm "forum shopping" without saying what that is or what I should have done instead. I've learnt to telegraph my intentions far ahead but still can't seem to make anyone happy. I have made important, lasting and useful edits on medical articles before and respond well to positive feedback and am not deliberately trying to be 'thick' but would be the first to admit that my intervention on Andrew Wakefield and related pages has been nothing short of disastrous.

I realise that the Wakefield article arouses strong feeling. It would be nice to have someone reassure or confirm whether I'm being treated like this because my edits really were shockingly bad or because I'm supporting an unpopular point of view.Nernst (talk) 17:46, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Quebec City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.221.37.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [141]

• 1st revert: [142]
• 2nd revert: [143]
• 3rd revert: [144]
• 4th revert: [145]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [146]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [147]

Comments:

User has been blocked for vandalism, feel free to close this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:00, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

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

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

• 1st revert: [148]
• 2nd revert: [149]
• 3rd revert: [150]
• 4th revert: [151]
• 5th revert: [152]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [154] See also explanation how to proceed at user talk page: [155]

Comments:
This user is edit-warring to remove files that are hosted on Commons from an article on Wikipedia under dubious claim of copyright. I would block, but having restored the content am tangentially involved. Based on this user's 3rd and 4th edit, it seems quite likely that the user is involved with the attempted assertion of competing external links to classical works in articles. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. De728631 (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: R160 (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.116.29.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [156]

• 1st revert: [157]
• 2nd revert: [158]
• 3rd revert: [159]
• 4th revert: [160]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [161]

Comments:

His edits continue the edits by several other IP's. Vcohen (talk) 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Note. The easiest solution, of course, is to semi-protect the article given that there are multiple IPs changing the article and then being reverted by different editors (this report really probably should have been made at WP:RFPP). However, it would be reassuring if you could point to a source that supports the material (keeping the F in the infobox and the body). I've poked around a little but I can't find anything.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

The external link is the source. [162] Just click on the December 4, 2012 Modified Hurricane Sandy Service and you can see that they have been on the F for pretty much years now. Both type of R160s are on the F and he just seems to be a recurring IP that does vandalism on the F and R160 pages, as you have noticed, it has been going around for awhile now and the pages have been semi protected before which during that time were fine.--iGeMiNix 01:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not a reliable source but I guess it'll have to do, along with the clear opinions of multiple editors that the material should remain. I've semi-protected the page for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:36, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Istanbul Atatürk Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jetstreamer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [163]

• 1st revert: [164]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [165]

• Note. Flightmemory is a brand new account. For that reason, I've fixed the report, although not completed the diffs, notified Jetstreamer, and asked them to comment here.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • It's a pleasure for me to comment here. It all started when the editor added content to Istanbul Atatürk Airport. As per WP:AIRPORT, firm dates are required. Actually, the user added firm dates, but they were not supported by the sources s(he) provided. (It's a detail, but the sources added were in Spanish, which by the way is my native language). I reverted their first two edits and placed a level-one warning regarding the addition of unsourced or improperly cited material at their talk page, pointing out that the references provided did not support the added stuff, followed by a second- and third-level warning, as s(he) reverted my reversions twice. There was no communication from the user at all, neither at their talk page nor at mine. I was expecting a third reversion from the user, but it did not occur. Maybe s(he) is aware of WP:3RR. In that case, I'd stop reverting, as I'm also aware of it. That's all for now.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 01:27, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• No violation. I don't see the necessary fourth revert for a WP:3RR; editor has explicitly stated that they will stop reverting at any rate. Please be careful about using the rollback tool in borderline cases like this. Kuru (talk) 15:02, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
  • Yes, I agree with you that I shouldn't have used the rollback tool, as it is intended for cases of obvious vandalism. Thanks.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 00:36, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Command & Conquer (1995 video game) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niemti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: see below

• 1st revert: user removed the programmer, Niemti added it back
• 2nd revert: user removed categories, Niemti added it back
• 3rd revert: user removed categories, Niemti added them back
• 4th revert: user added a template to a quote, Niemti removed the template

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [166]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am not involved in this dispute; I am merely reporting its occurrence.

Comments:

• This report is premature as there is no discussion attempted on the talk page by either the reporter or by the reverted editor about any of the contentious content. Additionally, if does not fit the concept of an 'edit' war, as all of the changes are more-or-less separate changes. --Izno (talk) 03:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  The fact that there is not discussion is part of why this is an edit war (see WP:EDITWAR). I am not sure I understand what you mean that the changes are separate and therefore this is not an edit war. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  The changes are fairly unrelated, to be more precise. Also, see the comment on this very page which basically requires talk page discussion in an attempt to fix the issue by either of the parties. I would not call this a case of edit warring, due to both of those reasons. --Izno (talk) 04:06, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Not blocked. Yes, "unrelated edits" count to 3RR, and there is no requirement to have a discussion. I see multiple editors that have technical 3RR violations on 12/7, so I would normally protect the article to encourage discussion, but that seems pointless after a day has passed with no further rapid editing of the article. Niemti, please be more careful when editing in the future. Kuru (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

  Huh. You learn something. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: Pisces (astrology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TippyGoomba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 00:58, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

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

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff This deletion was done by another user who gave me a tome of policy to look over on my talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff warning left in summary

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff on my talk page. Conversations with the two users, the first who never responded, and the second who threatened to block me.

Comments:

• Revert diffs: 1, 2, 3. Starcartographer, you forgot to notify the user of this discussion. I have done so, but in the future please remember to. --Odie5533 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Declined. TippyGoomba did not breach 3RR. I am not going to sanction them for edit-warring as you were equally "guilty" and with less cause. You should be discussing the content dispute on the article talk page (not on yours) and not battling in the article. Also, please learn how to file reports here. Use diffs, not links for the reverts. Sign your comments. Notify the other party.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:03, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• I don't agree with your decision to decline. Without supplying any reason for deletion, they three times removed cited content, leaving the article with hanging refs and an obsolete infobox template. I engaged them on their talk page to give a reason for deletion as I assume it is not common for a user to give a reason for adding cited content. They ignored all of my requests. He undid my additions three times, to which I added it back twice, and then I came here to file a report. - s t a r c a r (talk) 16:45, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The onus is on you to get the necessary consensus on the talk page. IRWolfie- (talk) 20:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: 00 Agent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.7.114.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [167]
• 2nd revert: [168]
• 3rd revert: [169]
• 4th revert: [170]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In edit summary: [171]; on talk page: [172]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on editors talk page: [173]. Subsequent addition of new thread onto the article talk page: [174]

Comments:

How is the edit at 22:47 a revert? Has that material been added and removed in the past? Kuru (talk) 15:23, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, here.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:29, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Not sure how I missed that edit - thanks! Kuru (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Page: 2012 Six Nations Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [175]

• 1st revert: [176] 3 Dec
• 2nd revert: [177] 7 Dec
• 3rd revert: [178] 7 Dec
• 4th revert: [179] 7 Dec

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [180]

Comments:

User is continually reverting the removal of a table, the inclusion of which has no consensus. He refuses to enter discussion, and thinks that consensus is required to remove the table, not include it. As per BRD, the bold inclusion of the table was reverted, with valid reason (not by me, although I have used a similar IP) and thus inclusion of the table now requires discussion. Not its removal. 131.251.254.19 and 2.221.217.56 are me. Whilst I have reverted 3 times, I have also attempted to discuss, something this other user has failed to do. He is also reverting the same thing on 2013 Six Nations Championship, again without discussion. As far as I can see, my removal of the table is supported by BRD , which suggests that after the first removal of a bold addition, then its inclusion must be discussed (but admit I should not have repeatedly reverted). Instead, this user seems intent on ignoring discussion and just reverting the removal of the table with no consensus for its inclusion. 2.221.217.56 (talk) 14:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. No 3RR by either side, but clearly the pattern is unconstructive. I've protected the page to let the discussion you started come to a completion. Kuru (talk) 15:31, 8 December 2012 (UTC)