Page: Shepperton Design Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 41.133.47.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [1]

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6] and [7]

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

Comments: Anon IP is removing factual statements, adding false statements based on misinterpreted original research, and appears to be trying to edit the article to be more positive towards the company. This has been ongoing for some time, but this is the first time the IP has violated 3RR.

• OK, this is a weird one. The IP has clearly violated 3RR, and as such * Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, but they are probably correct about the edit, and as such I have restored it with a reasonable edit summary. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:27, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - it doesn't appear that this editor was ever actually blocked. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the article was actually semi-protected since the editor has changed IPs in the past. Kuru (talk) 15:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user is me. I was unaware of the 3RR at the time. After having been made aware of it, I ceased editing the article. I also explained certain things on one user's article. Rather than summing it all up again, here is a link(which hopefully won't get removed as others have been by certain editors):

[9]

As noted, the editor User:MikeWazowski has hardly been spotless himself, having removed WP:RS. Also note, that after having been alerted of the existence of the 3RR, I made no further edits to the article, whereas User:MikeWazowski almost immediately edited the page-as-protected re-inserting unsourced POV material. 41.133.47.137 (talk) 15:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you call "removing reliable sources" was in fact removing your mis-interpretation of sources. As for calling my additions unsourced, let's look at how the article existed before you started, and how it exists now - all of the sourced additions and rewrites were done by me. And as the UK court issued an associated ruling in which they agreed Lucasfilm's copyright had been infringed in the US, and those infringements were enforceable in Britain, the use of the word "unauthorized" is factual, sourced in the article, and not POV. MikeWazowski (talk) 14:32, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as "misinterpreting" this?

[10]

which you removed here

[11]

I must note a certain sense of arrogance on your part "all of the sourced additions and rewrites were done by me", "I will be updating this article later, but this statement will not stand" etc.

Meanwhile as far as "before I started", wrong again..

the original article

[12] (that article was created on October 12 2006)

it wasn't until May 17 2010(ie FIVE YEARS LATER) that an anonymous editor FIRST added the word "unauthorized"

[13]

this is what was reverted wand has started the troubles. Meanwhile, the question STILL stands..."is there a WP:RS which specifically refers to these props as 'unauthorized', especially given the link I provided above (not for the first time as you have removed it before)?"

As far as my removing the WP:OR of the inclusion of the word "unauthorized", and others insisting on re-instating it, please read WP:BURDEN and WP:V. You have DELIBERATELY removed not one but 2 WP:RS that I added, just because they conflicted with your POV, and you insist on re-inserting a contentious, unsourced term without a WP:RS. 41.133.47.137 (talk) 16:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: ARA Moreno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and ARA Rivadavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 79.223.30.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 13:51, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "Fix the templates if you don't like the distances. Your mode prevents a unified look and makes WP:ACCESS harder.")
2. 14:20, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "See discussion")
3. 14:24, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "Seems to be uncontroversial then. If you want a space, take it to the navbox and stop destroying Wikipedia unified style.")
4. 15:17, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "I don't know what AWB is or why you would like to AWB-proof the navbox. However, stop creating ad-hoc style, change the navbox if you want more spaces.")
5. 15:26, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "rv disruptive style-breaking edit. See Talk:ARA Rivadavia.")

ARA Rivadavia

1. 14:23, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "Stop preventing a unified look across articles. If you want a space, take it to the navbox people.")
2. 15:17, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "See discussion")
3. 15:26, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "rv disruptive style-breaking edit. See Talk:ARA Rivadavia.")
4. 16:13, 24 September 2011 (edit summary: "Stop lawyering and start discussing the issue, see Talk:ARA Rivadavia.")

Previous version reverted to: [14] and [15]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [17]

Comments:

IP attempting to remove <!-- non-breaking space to keep AWB drones from altering the space before the navbox--> in order to "create a unified look". Talk page discussion is leading nowhere with IP not contributing constructively. Buggie111 (talk) 16:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That last part is simply a lie, look for yourself. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 17:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I correct myself. One of your edits did help the discussion [18]. The rest of them, like this:[19] are not helping. Buggie111 (talk) 17:28, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With "helpful", I assume you mean comments that agree with your point of view. I suggest that you start participating in said discussion before lamenting that I'm not helpful.

One more question: Who was it that initiated the discussion? --79.223.30.75 (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, by helpful, I mean comments that actually move the discussion along, not spomething that denies compromise like: "That shows that you don't understand the issue: The navbox can't change anything. If you prefer a space in front of any navbox, you have to take it there. Otherwise, you will create a look that is not unified across pages" or "You quote is too long: "Where more than one style is acceptable [...]", and patching spaces by inserting HTML comments certainly is not. If you'd actually used a style (eg. by changing navboxes), we wouldn't have this discussion. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 16:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC) ", which basically just pushes your POV. Also, the fact that you initiated the discussion does not mean that you instantly are right (i.e. He started it.....) Buggie111 (talk) 19:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, whatever, if you want to discuss the issue, go to the known place. --79.223.30.75 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IP is being disruptive; the talk is all against the abrupt removes @ Talk:ARA_Rivadavia#Spacing, ip has spread this to Rivadavia-class battleship. I've reverted the last ones and suggest ip get a day off. i told them, twice, to raise their concern at the navbox-level.  —Portuguese Man o' War 20:41, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concur; please block the IP. They have performed 16 reverts on the three articles in question today. --Eisfbnore • talk 20:52, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Parsecboy (talk) 20:57, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Special:Contributions/91.10.26.140 would seem to be the same person... same reverts.  —Portuguese Man o' War 21:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Senegal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serer people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Serer religion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Fula language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Halaqah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [20]

• 1st revert: [21]
• 2nd revert: [22]
• 3rd revert: [23]
• 4th revert: [24]
• 5th revert: [25]
• 6th revert: [26]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]

• [29]
• [30]

Comments:

This person has persued me and my edits and will not stop until action is taken against them. It is mostly about Religion. Islam V Serer religion. Every notable sources cited about Serer people's experience with Islam has been deleted by this person and deemed biased against Islam, even when they are direct quotes from authors. This person is present in all Serer related articles and other articles I have edited. Articles this person has never shown any interested in until recently. The level of edit warring has gotten so bad that, I should just give up on the articles and let them fall naturally. Articles I have invested a lot of time in and effort and a person who have no interest in the article other than their edit war. The Serer people article has been protected for now after my request. Tamsier (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2011 (UTC) -->[reply]

This complaint is hard to understand. Evidently Tamsier and Halaqah have clashed over multiple articles, and the diffs listed above are collected from all over. The Serer people article has been fully protected due to edit warring, but I don't know how that was decided. There's not enough evidence in this 3RR report to see who ought to be sanctioned. A case was filed here 3 days ago by the same editor: [31]. There is an open complaint by Tamsier against Kwamikagami regarding Serer people at WQA. If the main dispute is about Serer people then somebody could open up a WP:Request for comment there. Tamsier's efforts to get various people sanctioned don't seem to be making any headway. EdJohnston (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about this complaint. This editor is a problem for the quality of wikipedia and I was going to make a formal complaint asking that their bigoted Serer Advocacy campaign across several articles (which has a distinctive anti-Islamic, anti-non-Serer tone). I noticed it after spotting some terible POV in one article. I noticed that material was copy and pasted into many other articles. Same text, same tone, same bias, same poor unreliable sources which have racial supremacy of one ethnic group "The Mighty Serer", "Unlike other people who easily abandon their faith the Serer are...", I think the editors own links speak for themselves as terrible NPOV violations. the quality of wikipedia cannot tolerate Advocacy that violates NPOV. Notice that none of their accusation deal with any FACTS over content, like putting incorrect tags in an article and disrupting it. They suggest stalking, and rightly so, when POV content is being copy and pasted across many pages.Because the pages are low level they got away with several disruptions. As I said the edits can be investigated so see if I AGF , also see talk page discussions for each edit. I suggest this user be banned as a disruptive advocate who disregards policy, also see the reasons he/she give for reverting other editors incorrect tagging.--Halqh حَلَقَة הלכהሐላቃህ (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Result: Submitter warned. Tamsier assumes that he is right about certain African language issues but does not appear to have sources to back up his position. The fact that his changes are so frequently reverted should alert him that consensus is needed before he inserts his positions again. This edit summary looks uncivil to me: "..Halaqah being muslim wants that section decapitated." EdJohnston (talk) 05:53, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Template:Latest F1GP (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Rino (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Template:WikiProject Flag Template (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.122.138.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [32]

• 1st revert: [33]
• 2nd revert: [34]
• 3rd revert: [35]
• 4th revert: [36]
• 5th revert: [37]
• 6th revert: [38]
• 7th revert: [39]
• 8th revert: [40]
• 9th revert: [41]

(Note from LikeLakers2: These reverts are from Template:Latest F1GP)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42]

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

Comments:

This is a simple, uncontroversial update of a template that is made for every new Formula One Grand Prix. The current one is taking place now, so the update was made. This IP has reverted it nine times and counting. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Taken from the AIV noticeboard:

• Repeatedly reverting edits simply because there was no reason given.. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well as edit warring. I suggest the talk page access be blocked on first block, so that they won't remove the block template. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:09, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This IP is pretty problematic - he reverts very minor, uncontroversial edits for no reason, up to ten times and counting on the same article. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:11, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:13, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Updated to include links. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 22:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 3 days. m.o.p 14:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• 1st revert: [43]
• 2nd revert: [44]
• 3rd revert: [45]
• 4th revert: [46]

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

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

Comments:
User:Captain armenia is engaging in edit wars and by erasing sourced NPOV material and adding POV material without sources. This user has threatened other registered users with a block even though he is not an administrator and has referred registered users which reverted his editions to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution notice board without first going to the talk page of the article. This user has already violated three-revert rule by reverting this article 4 times and likely will continue to do so again. Saguamundi (talk) 17:40, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to complain about this user as this user keeps acting like he basically "owns" the article by adding some biased information without acknowledging basic wiki laws.--NovaSkola (talk) 19:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final warning issued. m.o.p 14:57, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Journal of Cosmology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [48]
• 2nd revert: [49]
• 3rd revert: [50]
• 4th revert: [51]
• 5th revert: [52]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well established and familiar with 3RR policies

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [53]

Comments: User keeps removing expert blogs cited multiple times by other sources per some misunderstanding of what WP:SPS actually says. E.g. Pharyngula (blog) is an award-winning blog from PZ Myers, which Nature (journal) recognized as the top science blog of 2006. Likewise for Phil Plait and his Bad Astronomy published in Discover magazine. Battison herself published in the Journal of Cosmology and gave a hard look at the peer reviewing process from the Journal of Cosmology. Rosie Redfield also gave a point-by-point debunking on the Hoover claims. All these sources were widely quote in the media, and are as reliable as it gets. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:49, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP removals are not a revert. Using this blog to call the journals editors "Cranks" isa violation of BLP policy. I will also point out Headbomb has done three reverts, with one after BLP concerns were raised[54]. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are not BLP removals, as the quotes are fully attributed to whoever made them, reflect mainstream opinion, and were published in reliable and recognized sources.Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 20:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You used a Blog to call BLP`s "cranks" if this is so mainstream why use a blog and not a newspaper or journal? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you want to quote someone, you cite the place where the quote was originally made. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 21:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection, 3 days - work it out on talk. Vsmith (talk) 21:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.5.94.52 (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]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [60]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [61]

Comments:

This IP apparently believes that sources must be online, which is not so. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You realize you've violated 3RR yourself, yes? only (talk) 01:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

3RR does not relate to combating vandalism. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:18, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but he's claiming the source is not POV and is removing it on that grounds. This sounds like an edit dispute over the source...not a case of vandalism. only (talk) 01:24, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What, are you claiming that The Times is in some way unreliable? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film reviews are obviously not NPOV, they are opinions> I have added two "positive reviews" but the fact remains that some critics don't think much of the film. Do you think that the opinions of a Times reviewer are not worthy of inclusion? Jezhotwells (talk) 01:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another removal here. Jezhotwells (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You guys have already engaged in discourse on the talk page - clear up your disagreements there before you start editing the main page. I'll check back in a bit to see how things are going. m.o.p 15:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [62]

• 1st revert: [63]
• 2nd revert: [64]
• 3rd revert: [65]
• 4th revert: [66]
• 5th revert: through sock IP 24.21.18.209

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning and other notices: [67]

Comments:
Assorted copyvio infringements, statements not covered by citations and citing Wikipedia articles. Continues unabated despite multiple warnings. Violations of WP:BLP. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 07:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you very much Fastily. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Principality of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 08:49, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "rv - dont use the sources from the 1905 and encyclopedias instead of the reliable secondary sources and stop to edit warring")
2. 09:26, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "we cannot verify the source from bauer from your link")
3. 09:58, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "how could be a hungarian principality a first state and it was a tribal alliance? its unlogical, source its there but i need a verification")
4. 10:23, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "Its first time, what I have undone your edit today Koertefa. You came into content dispute between me and Fakirbakir (you are not neutral). It were removed tertiary sources from the 1905. secundary sources are there and content was repaired")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [68]

Comments:
Samofi is a very disruptive user who got a second chance for returning to Wikipedia after once already being blocked for indefinite time [69][70]. After that, he returned to his old way of editing; editwarring with Hungarian users, over Hungarian related content, and changing the nationality of every famous person who posesses an article on the English wikipedia from Hungarian into Slovak.

When he received his indef block, the reason for that was that[71];

• "As noted at ANI, the combination of large aggressive editing with a clear POV indicates a battleground mentality that's inappropriate here. The fact that your response pointing to edits at Černová tragedy which were immediately reverted (in part, because you are obviously removing sources you don't agree with) indicates a real need to understand that purposes of Wikipedia is not for you to push your POV on everybody else."

Which very reminiscents of what is going on here as mentioned by his opponent in this edit war by an edit summary:

• 9:38, 26 September 2011 (edit summary: "The full book is there (p. 586), DO NOT REMOVE SOURCES")

Also, Samofi is being discussed at WP ANI [72]. But because in my opinion, Samofi is in violation of 3RR, I also reported him on this very board as well. --Nmate (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a clear 3RR (10:23, 09:58, 09:26, and 08:49) and appears to be a continuation of his previous disruptive editing. Not sure on the block length, though; will provide input at the ANI discussion and see what other opinions are out there. Kuru (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot agree with the Nmate. I was not disruptive, I always use the reliable sources, but he dont like me from my begin at wikipedia - he wrote a lot of warnings to me, sockpuppetry investigation, he never discuss just write a reports against me. My last edit warring was a 1,5 year ago. My first edit what is reported here as edit warring is cut from the context (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&action=history). My first editation consisted with a 5 edits, I wanted to make a better entrance, but fakirbakir started to undone my work. So I undoned him 2x. Than his friend Koertefa (they were involved in canvass afair http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fakirbakir&diff=prev&oldid=448977281) was involved. I misinterpret 3RR, I thought that its about persons (Fakirbakir vs. me) its reason why I undone the edit of Koertefa (I wrote in the edit summary that its for a first time what I undone him). So it was a big mistake from my side that I broken a 3RR. If I would know it, I will not make it. Sorry. --Samofi (talk) 06:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About user Nmate who reported me. He provocate and write reports to all Slovak and Czech editors with different opinions and fall dirty to them instead of discussion and help. Look his activities, its clear ideological warrior and Iam abused from he more than year: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yopie&diff=451666472&oldid=451650075 he bite a newcomers http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Omen1229&diff=446123412&oldid=444652689 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaemn784&diff=prev&oldid=451831919 he often contact other editors and cooperate - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fakirbakir&diff=prev&oldid=452511766 he blanked my sourced page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Slovak_principality&diff=prev&oldid=449286064 he deleted my sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Nitra&diff=prev&oldid=449286020 he still plays with investigations: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Iaaasi&diff=prev&oldid=451509181 - look to this, again Hungarian editors vs. others. He has a battleground mentality and I cannot work at wikipedia because of he. He knows a rules good, so he provocate with other users and waiting for a mistake from our side. About my second undone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Principality_of_Hungary&diff=452489154&oldid=452487328 - sourced name by secondary sources the Hungarian tribal alliance was removed, I repaired it in my best faith coz its more frequent term than principality of hungary (which is mentioned only in tertiary sources). --Samofi (talk) 07:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Previous version reverted to: [73]

Reverts done today:

• 1st revert: [74]
• 2nd revert: [75]
• 3rd revert: [76]
• 4th revert: [77]

Older reverts within 3 days:

• [78]
• [79]
• [80]
• [81]
• [82]
• [83]

The user is trying to glorify the article, which is about a caste in India. He has removed the refimprove/peacock tags from the page, and is reverting since a week.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• [84]
• [85]
• [86]

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [[87]]

Comments:
Even after 3 warnings issued to the user, the artice is getting reverted. Chektomate (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four reverts in 24 hours (12:08,06:51,06:06,02:47) and many warnings about 3RR. Kuru (talk) 15:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Wanted (2009 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tamilan101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [88]

• 1st revert: [89]
• 2nd revert: [90]
• 3rd revert: [91]
• 4th revert: [92]

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

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

Comments:I haven't even received a summary from this user for his unexplained vandalizing reverts in the Wanted (2009 film) page. He seems to be a die-hard Kollywood fan (no use of WP:AGF here) and reverted mine and User:Managerarc's edits 4 or 5 times on changing the sentence to saying that "It is a remake of the Telugu film Pokiri". He wants it read that it is a remake of the Tamil remake of the Telugu film. I posted a notice in his page asking him to explain why he did it and I have provided a valid reason "In case of multiple remakes, the original writer is credited, so the original film i.e the Telugu version, is the film from which this has been remade" but no summaries or response has been received. Please block him at least for sometime and here's a link to his talk page in which I gave a warning. Thank you!

• Warned Re-report if the user continues to edit war. FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Big Brother 2011 (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:86.176.153.183 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [93]

see diffs identified in simultaneous report of same user/topic, following this report.

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

• This latest revert diff edit summary [94]appears to imply ownership of the article. I assume the "c" is intended to indicate copyright! However, it may be that he is agreeing to cease from further disruption.Leaky Caldron 15:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [96] plus response from IP [97] alleging censorship and ignoring consensus. Comments:

Closed per report below. Kuru (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Big Brother 2011 (UK) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Big Brother 2011 (UK) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [98]

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

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Big Brother 2011 (UK)#Removal of non-encyclopaedic material

Comments:

I didn't realize Leaky Cauldron was also making a report. As it seems we have given slightly different information, can our two reports be merged somehow? LadyofShalott 14:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Was warned; pretty simple. Kuru (talk) 15:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Two and a Half Men (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Westvoja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Davejohnsan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [104]

Reverts by Westvoja:

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

Reverts by Davejohnsan (including two misuses of Rollback):

• 1st revert (Rollback misuse): [110]
• 2nd revert: [111]
• 3rd revert (Rollback misuse): [112]
• 4th revert: [113]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning (for Westvoja, Davejohnsan is experienced enough to know to not edit war): [114]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [115]

Comments:

• Note:I'm not involved in this edit war, but decided to report it. Seems to be a hint of incivility (by Westvoja) as well here.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:13, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Blocked – for a period of 1 week -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:26, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't the other user be blocked too?Jasper Deng (talk) 22:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody warned him. I'm not inclined to block User:Davejohnsan without notice. You can warn him if you like though... -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:31, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

He was the one who gave the warning (see the diff), which implies he understands it. Plus, the misuse of rollback is something to look at too.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Warned now. I am, however, not comfortable blocking or revoking rollback privileges at this time. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Page: Militant atheism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Aprock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Aprock has been notified several times not to remove the link to the article militant atheism from other articles and templates throughout Wikipedia as the RfC that is discussing the article's fate is still in progress. I asked the editor to kindly wait until the RfC was over but he continued to remove the link to the article in question from other articles and templates. The following are the relevant differences:

• Exhibit A
• Exhibit B
• Exhibit C
• Exhibit D
• Exhibit E
• Exhibit F
• Exhibit G
• Exhibit H
• Exhibit I
• Exhibit J
• Exhibit K
• Exhibit L

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warning

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Exhibit 1, Exhibit 2

Comments: