Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive183

Dear Kuru, thanks again for looking through it. I am truly thankful that you did that! I understand everything you have said and agree with it. So, you do now agree that it was not really a violation? In that case, I am willing to do what was proposed by Ed for the Pakistan article as a good faith gesture as you again had to deal with "the same names" (although I don't remember when I last went here bothering anyone). I have had no real problem with any editor on wikipedia but blocked sock puppet master User:Lagoo sab and TopGun in combination with Magog (as can be seen above). In this case I discussed everything and then introduced a new sentence as discussed on the talk. I am sorry that TopGun brought this here again, and that Magog (with whom I had such disagreement that I had to go seek arbitration) feels the need to use this wrong report again to denounce anything related to me. For the last time, you are so much over the top, I can't even tell you, Magog. One year for 1 revert which isn't even a violation? I am just lucky that there are administrators here like Kuru, Salvio or even Ed which are willing to listen to what people are actually saying. JCAla (talk) 06:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I made a single revert (strictly adhering to 1RR) and reported a vio... with just that, this has turned into a drama which is now dragging me into
  WP:SOUP like Magog (and others) pointed out. A discussion was going on at the talk page and JCAla's version(s) didn't fully get a consensus, waiting it out and adding it later was a reasonable cause for me to invoke BRD at that point, yet a second revert was made. The only aim I've left here is that such reverts are not made in future. In good will to the notice board, I'll step out of this debate now and let the admins prevent that. --lTopGunl (talk
  ) 09:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• March 14-16, discussion about how to formulate the sentence.
• Me March 16: "I think we should leave it to the one sentence [last proposed by me] ..."
• March 16-April 8, no further objection, discussion goes into the archives. I add "the one sentence" on April 8.
• Not any other objection on the talk since I added it. TG changed one term (not present in any previously inserted sentence) inside the sentence, which I reverted once for above mentioned reasons (1. sources mainly call it conflict, even the wikipedia article is called "Balochistan conflict" and 2. the sentence would have been grammatically wrong, there is no insurgency between people, either there is an insurgency by people or a conflict between people). The revert was reasonably explained and one revert constitutes no violation.
• Only reaction on talk page was by User:Huon April 8: "JCAla's version is not quite what I'd have written, but it serves well enough."

As I understood you Kuru, you said, you now understand my position and also that your are "comfortable with the arrangement not being 'under a cloud'", which means to me it is not for any kind of violation, which wasn't there, but to "mitigate some of the trust issues" and ease the tension. So, although it was TG to bring this here again without there being any violation, under above mentioned circumstance I am willing to agree to Ed's suggestion as a good faith effort because you had to deal with this complicated topic area and lengthy discussion again - as did I. JCAla (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Closed by agreement, with voluntary restriction. JCAla has accepted my offer "How about you agree, for the next 30 days, to make no change at Pakistan that could be controversial unless you first propose it on the talk page and at least one other person supports it there." JCAla, if you have any more discussion on this, please take it to my talk page. If I have misread the discussion and it turns out you are not accepting this, see the above comment by Magog on other options to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 05:09, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Previous version reverted to: [73]

1. 15:15, 11 April 2012 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by
   TW
   )")
2. 23:16, 11 April 2012 (edit summary: "both references and opinions, for neutrality")
3. 09:08, 12 April 2012 (edit summary: "please, add source how many Moravians are speaking different language than Czech and read WP:UNDUE")
4. 09:24, 12 April 2012 (edit summary: "dubious")
5. 09:27, 12 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 486975202 by
   talk
   )")

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

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

Comments:
The user is quite familiar with the 3RR rule, and has recently warned his opponent about edit-warring [76]. It may be that the 4th and 5th above linked diffs constitute only one revert, but even if that is the case, Yopie still appears to be in violation of 3RR.--Nmate (talk) 10:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: Woodleigh School, North Yorkshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 213.246.90.36 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [77]
• 2nd revert: [78]
• 3rd revert: [79]
• 4th revert: [80]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [81]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [82] &sub, see also discussion at User talk:Yunshui#Woodleigh School.

Comments:

Afraid I agree with the ip. The ip has simply restored referenced material which has been deleted by reporting editor and one other for no good reason. No consensus had been achieved prior to established material being removed. I cannot see any evidence of edit warring, by the IP at least...isfutile:P (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: Tribes: Ascend (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 90.229.231.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [83]
• 2nd revert: [84]
• 3rd revert: [85]
• 4th revert: [86]
• 5th revert: [87]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [89]

Comments:
Recently released game, user is trying to add a link to the sign-up page with their referral code. Semi-protection has been requested, but this is by far the most determined of the users trying to get their referral code on WP.

Thanks for the semi on the article!

Ravensfire (talk

) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. EdJohnston (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Page:

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

Time reported: 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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

• 07:22, 20 March 2012: Original edit
• 14:37, 20 March 2012: Revert 1
• 15:03, 22 March 2012: Revert 2
• 14:49, 23 March 2012: Revert 3
• 15:20, 23 March 2012: Warned by SchmuckyTheCat
• 22:58, 23 March 2012: Revert 4
• 23:40, 23 March 2012: Warned by NULL
• 06:59, 24 March 2012: Revert 5
• 15:22, 25 March 2012: Warned by EdJohnston
• 10:42, 29 March 2012: Revert 6
• 11:44, 29 March 2012: Revert 7
• 20:25, 29 March 2012: Warned by EdJohnston
• 14:48, 2 April 2012: Revert 8
• 16:22, 2 April 2012: Blocked by EdJohnston for 48 hours
• 18:47, 6 April 2012: Revert 9

Comments:
This has been an ongoing issue with this editor. The problem edit is the repeated addition of {{

The user was directly warned four times not to do this, once by SchmuckyTheCat, once by myself and then twice by admin EdJohnston after a previous AN3 report was filed. After persisting, Jeffrey was blocked for 48 hours. After his block expired, he returned only two days later to make yet another revert of the material. Jeffrey refuses to acknowledge that his edits have been disruptive and doesn't seem inclined to change his behaviour even after a block. I alerted User:EdJohnston on his talk page but wasn't sure if I should file another report here, so here it is anyway.

– NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:35, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: User:NULL's summary above appears correct. Since I issued the last block (for 48 hours) it is best if a different admin looks into the case this time around. Jeffrey Fitzpatrick continues with his disruptive refactoring of the talk page even though nobody agrees that it's appropriate, and his changes are always undone by other editors. The previous 3RR case (where he was warned for the same thing) is now archived here. Still further back, Fitzpatrick was blocked for doing the same thing as the IP 202.189.98.131 (talk · contribs). The IP address is still under a range block per this action from April 2011, which I haven't researched any further. Conceivably this editor is a sock of Instantnood, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood/Archive. Others may look into that if they wish. Even without the sock connection, my proposal would be for a one-month block since this editor is far beyond the reach of persuasion and seems unwilling to work with others. EdJohnston (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I have explained many times that my edits were to restore my own comments that Schmucky and NULL had insisted to delete or to refactor for no reason. I agreed not to restore the Unsigned tags already (with one single exception, since I posted a question to Schmucky there). Null simply doesn't listen at all, and keeps lying around as part of his political agenda. I wouldn't restore those deleted/refactored comments on this talk page in two months' time provided that an uninvolved admin will look into its edit history and restore my comments. (Meanwhile, it is important to note that it's Schmucky and Null who disrupted the page by adding back the mislocated bot-generated notification again and again, removing the {{Anchor}} tag that an IP editor had added, and it's Schmucky who on 31st March 2012 refactored Jiang's comment back in 2004.[90]) Jeffrey (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

This user has violated 3RR again begun edit warring at Category:Gondola lifts in China, forcing a C1 tag on the page even though the category is under discussion at CFD. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Bushranger had been very helpful and had helped me settle this already. Jeffrey (talk) 23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, he told you your restoration of the C1 tag was inappropriate, and issued you an warning for edit-warring on your talk page. It remains relevant evidence that you have a long-term problem of edit-warring across multiple pages. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're submitting a tip of an iceberg again, my friend. You daren't mention how it ended up, e.g.[91] Jeffrey (talk) 00:07, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

It ended up with you being warned and told the removal of the C1 tag was appropriate. Would you like to invite Bushranger to clarify his assessment here? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Read the diff link. Is that still a warning? Jeffrey (talk) 00:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Utility of a block?

The IP connection to previous socks is not news to me. Neither is the subject matter overlap between Jeffrey, blocked IPs, and some other recently created accounts (and another more long term account I look at). I thought about putting a joke on his talk page asking if he forgot which account he was using and why both hadn't voted early in the cable car CfD. He abandoned publishing his IP in his signature. I'm unsure a month long block is that effective. If it is a sock of Instantnood, then it's just another disposable account. Rather than forcing "Jeffrey" into other accounts and IPs (which just makes the disruption more difficult to track) via a long term block, it may be more useful to transparently and blatantly recognize the account as disruptive while allowing it to continue. A 1RR enforced by short blocks may actually provide less disruption to the project than the wholesale manipulation by random HK IP addresses we had this winter. A CU check, and ongoing peeks, may be warranted to enforce a one account rule. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

On the assumption that Jeffrey is Instantnood, that may be appropriate. However, if he's not, a longer block would be an appropriate response I think. We already know the IP range Jeffrey uses, it's still blocked for the next few days. It will be obvious if he returns on an IP after he's blocked, once the IP range block lapses. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I've restored this from the archive. This problem is becoming increasingly worse and needs to be dealt with. The editor has now deliberately disrupted a talk page redirect at Template talk:Taiwan topics despite being aware there is only one template and the redirect is under discussion. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 20:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

User:NULL reported by User:Jeffrey Fitzpatrick (Result: )

The problem was that

old navbox that User:NULL had effectively killed. (He merged the two navboxes despite my protests. The two navboxes had coexisted for four years before he merged them.) Template talk:Taiwan topics is now the only where that I can place my comments on {{Taiwan topics}}. I've only reverted twice his deletion of my comments, and the two reverts were 29 hours apart (whereas he had reverted me thrice).[92][93][94] I had warned him in the edit summaries not to delete my comments again. Jeffrey (talk

) 23:12, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The templates were merged by consensus, you were the only person who objected. You were told by a few editors that turning a redirect into a talk page while that very redirect is being discussed is inappropriate. That's why your edits have been reverted. One template does not need two talk pages. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:29, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The merge tag was never applied. The discussion period was too short to allow for 'consensus' of any kind. Even worse was that you didn't even state clearly how you are going to carry it out, nor did you go back to the talk page to tell others that you had done it. Only three people (including me) had responded to your merge suggestion. That's hardly any consensus at all. Only you and your long–time co-belligerent Chip had talked about my comment at Template talk:Taiwan topics. (And that's 'a few'?) Please stop presenting only a small tip of an iceberg to the admins. Although they probably won't be misled, what you are doing is indeed increasing their workload. Jeffrey (talk) 23:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

This isn't the place to argue. I'll simply point out that merging the templates was detailed and advertised. Three editors agreed to a merge, one disagreed. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:56, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You'd never applied the merge tag. And you did the merge in less than 48 hours since you proposed it unofficially and presumed that consensus had already been reached. (Proposed at 22:21, 22 March 2012, merged at 21:55, 24 March 2012‎.) Jeffrey (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to apply the merge tag, TFD isn't a requirement for editing templates in much the same way RFC isn't a requirement for editing articles. I posted the proposal and advertised it as a matter of courtesy, and gained consensus on the change before enacting it. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You know very well how controversial the Taiwan/ROC thing has been, and you know a Tfm request would have been a lot more desirable. Even if you skipped all those steps, it's hard for anyone to consider a less-than-48 hours discussion with only three respondents to be a consensus of any kind. And now you resort to accusing me for disruptions to fulfil your agenda, while the actual fact is that you deleted three times my comment that you don't like for a peculiar reason. Jeffrey (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no point responding to you, you haven't listened to a single piece of advice anyone has given you. You've been warned by two admins about disruptive editing. You've been blocked by two other admins for disruptive editing. You've been warned by one admin against making personal attacks. Yet you continue to edit disruptively, you continue to make personal attacks. There is no foreseeable productive outcome in continuing this conversation. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're continuing your habit of misrepresenting facts. I have requested you to stop and you never listen. The fact is that I was blocked once (instead of twice as you claimed) for my edits to Talk:Demographics of Greater China, and that was because you (and Schmucky) deleted my comments for no reason and reverted my edits blindly. The admin who reminded me to avoid personal attacks accepted when I replaced 'lying' with 'misrepresenting the facts', yet you daren't tell the full picture here. Jeffrey (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You were blocked twice. Once on your current account and once on your IP address (block log). I'm not responding to you any further here, you're a severe case

WP:IDHT. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits

› 00:47, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That was because HiLo48 put his comments at the wrong location and disrupted the process of discussions. You haven't even responded on why you reverted me three times at Template talk:Taiwan topics. That's on the edge of 3RR. Jeffrey (talk) 00:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

No I didn't. You displayed a very weird view on where I should put my responses to others, which was later clearly refuted. Don't falsely accuse me as part of your defence here. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Always someone else's fault, never yours, right? – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That's definitely not the case my dear friend. Sometimes it's my mistake, sometimes not. But what you have been trying to suggest was that it had always been my fault. Jeffrey (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

We have a saying in English, 死馬當活馬醫. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Admin observation: With the case at hand it's clear that Jeffrey, STC and NULL have all violated 3RR, Jeffrey on both pages, STC on the article talk and NULL on the template talk. I think the main issue with this dispute is that no one else actually cares: no one else edited those pages doing the edit war. I think in this case IDHT works both ways. Thus instead of Ed's suggestion of a one-sided block against Jeffrey, I don't recommend any block. The 3 of them just have to sort out their little fight themselves. (Given my long-standing involvement with the 3 of them I recuse from closing this thread myself.) Deryck C. 08:08, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Could you link to the diffs of Schmucky or myself making more than three reverts in a 24 hour period on any page? I'm looking at the page histories of the pages involved and I'm not seeing it. Jeffrey also hasn't recently violated 3RR either. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 23:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Schmucky on Talk:Demographics of Greater China: [95][96][97][98]
• NULL: my apologies. Your reverts were indeed spread over more than 24h, and the mobile format gave me the wrong impression that on one of the redirects you made more than 3 reverts within 24h. Deryck C. 21:08, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Deryck Chan, blocked Jeffrey for 2 weeks pretty much as you were posting here, and didn't see your post till afterwards. He's cranking up disruption in other places as well now. Schmucky, if you think he's Instantnood, can you file an SPI Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No worries Elen, I'm just commenting on the case at hand and Ed disagreed with me anyway. Deryck C. 21:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is an SPI case open actually, at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Instantnood. – NULL ‹talk›
‹edits› 00:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: Louise Vyent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fasttimes68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 1st revert: [99] Article was "restored" but still nonetheless reverted.
• 2nd revert: [100] Revert
• 3rd revert: [101] Revert
• 4th revert: [102] Revert

User was already warned by someone else.

Someone else restored the article so I left it and the talk page alone.

Comments:

I am new here but trying to do my best. N!ghtl!ght (talk) 18:51, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hershebar - reporting user is a sockpuppet. Calabe1992 22:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef, by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:23, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: Parkour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.4.26.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [108]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Vandalistic edit-warring by the IP. Adding nonsense uncited original research. Reported at AIV but due to backlog no action taken there thus far. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 15:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected. The article is semi-protected right now, so this won't continue. If the IP commits one more vandal edit I'll block. One could argue that the IP's edits are not intelligent but not necessary vandalism. Next time, Dr. K, please leave it be and don't revert a half a dozen times: the wiki won't break in the meantime. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I agree. The wiki is resilient and mechanisms are in place to reverse even the worst vandalism. The problem is how long do we want to keep this IP speaking in Wikipedia's voice and saying all kinds of nonsense to the reader and what this does to Wikipedia's reputation. If you don't have a problem with that I can easily adjust to accomodate. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:33, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: Ted Turner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 17:44, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Added that he dates Elizabeth Dewberry.")
2. 19:47, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ dates Elizabeth Dewberry")
3. 20:04, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ Dates Elizabeth Dewberry")
4. 21:15, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 487397477 by Bbb23 (talk)Editor wrongly said it was not source compliant.")
5. 22:12, 14 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 487403491 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk); editor made false claim of unreliable source")

• Diff of warning: here

• The first edit is the first attempt to add and is not a revert; the remaining four are all reverts.

—Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:17, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Attempt to resolve problem on my Talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: 0.999... (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.165.95.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [109]

• 1st revert: [110]
• 2nd revert: [111]
• 3rd revert: [112]
• 4th revert: [113]
• 5th revert: [114]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [115]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A, attempts to reason through the edit summaries have been made though

Comments:

Constant attempt to change the content of the article in a way that I'm pretty sure is mathematically incorrect and intended as vandalism.

Anon editor continued to edit war from

WP:RPP. Singularity42 (talk

) 03:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: Ed Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 108.14.222.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [116]

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

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

Diff of attempts to resolve dispute on article talk page: [122][123]

Comments:
This user seems to be continuing where

Page: Hindu Kush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Oldmonk7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [124]

• 1st revert: [125]
• 2nd revert: [126]
• 3rd revert: [127]
• 4th revert: [128]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [129], [130]

Comments:
Oldmonk7 has been reverted by three different editors now, and has been told by two (one is me, the other is an admin) that he must get consensus for the (sourced) material he objects to on the article's talk page but his response has been to continue to revert. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with BMK's report--thank you for filing it. Edit war cases aren't always simple, but this one is. Drmies (talk) 15:23, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked for 24 hours. Nyttend (talk) 13:39, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: Katana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 89.100.207.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: [131]

• 1st revert: [132]
• 2nd revert: [133]
• 3rd revert: [134]
• 4th revert: [135]
• 5th revert: [136]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [137]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [138]

Comments:

I'm an uninvolved editor who happened upon this activity. This recent warring comes in the context of a content dispute between the ip listed and User:Samuraiantiqueworld about a single word in the lede to Katana. The registered user has cited his or her assertion and made several attempts to draw a talk discussion in edit summaries, but the ip user continues to revert, reverting the escalating warning notices on the ip's talk. BusterD (talk) 12:57, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Both blocked. I was tempted to block just the IP, but given the talk page behavior and the edit summaries, both are equally at fault. Nyttend (talk) 13:37, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [487260649]

• 1st revert: [139]
• 2nd revert: [140]
• 3rd revert: [141]
• 4th revert: [142]
• 5th revert: [143]
• 6th revert: [144]
• 7th revert: [145]

Comments:A typical case of Madonna fans going mad. User: Bluesatellite is reverting other editors left, right and center in order to remove any details that put Madonna in a lesser light. Seven reverts of various details have been made by him today alone, even adequately sourced information is being reverted. Attempts by users to explain edits in the edit summaries have been ignored - Bluesatellite just wants to own the article and have everything his way with a favourable bias towards the article subject. Sometimes he does not even bother putting an edit summary in of his own to explain his reverts. A look into this user's edit history shows this is a regular pattern of behaviour. Further investigation shows that there is a possible tag-team issue between Bluesatellite and User:Tbhotch and that Bluesatellite is possibly a sock of a problematic user known as User:Legolas2186 who has a vast history of similar behaviour on Madonna related articles (there have also been tag-teaming issues between Tbhotch and Legolas2186 on Madonna related articles in the past). It may be that the three accounts are actually all the same person, however, the Bluesatellite account has been active since 2009 and the user is certainly aware of breaking 3RR policy and should be blocked for the breaches listed above. Particled (talk) 07:56, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

• LOL at this whole thing. An IP user was trying to add info such as "though Born This Way debuted with 1.1 million copies sold" and a genre without a reliable source. It's obvious a Gaga fan is trying to ruin a Madonna article. I know all three users mentioned here, and they are not alike AT ALL. Legolas has actually quit Wikipedia, and he's had conflicts with Bluesatellite in the past. I find it quite funny how the user reporting this has less than 10 edits; I'd even go on to say (s)he was one of the IPs disrupting the article. Then deciding to login to report. — Statυs (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• I concur with Status's evaluation - Bluesatellite was removing unsourced opposing fancruft and unsourced genre additions, and while it might have been technically
  WP:IAR in this case. I have semi-protected the article so that it cannot be edited by unconfirmed users, so if any IPs want to make any changes, they will have to request them on the Talk page and get a consensus. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk
  ) 19:40, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Gaga's first week album sales are irrelevant to the article. It is about a second week drop. The Evita soundtrack is credited solely to Madonna; many other reports have said she has beat Elvis' record (which should be added to further verify). There is absoultely no such article ownership here; if you actually read the page (

WP:OWN) it says article ownership as being: "An editor disputes minor edits concerning layout, image use, and wording in a particular article daily." Reverting vandalism and unsourced content does not fall under that category. — Statυs (talk

) 01:54, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If a point is being made in an article about second week sales drops as a percentage, then including the first week's sales figure is obviously relevant because it brings context to the issue. It's encyclopedic (and many people seem to forget that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fansite). Rabid Madonna fans only removed it because it makes the sales of her album look inferior to Lady Gaga's. However, this is beside the point - a content dispute is not vandalism nor was it unsourced. Much like the Evita soundtrack NOT being a Madonna album, it is a cast recording. Even one of the original sources (Music Week) given in the article says it and makes it clear and questions the legitimacy of Madonna having the most number one albums by a solo artist. This is an appalling case of selectively picking only the information that puts Madonna in the best possible light. It is not encyclopedic. The

• If you have a content dispute, you need to discuss it on the Talk page and seek consensus - and the onus is on the editors wishing to *add* material to justify it and they should not re-add once it has been reverted until there is a consensus. If a discussion on the Talk page does not reach a satisfactory conclusion then the steps outlined at
  WP:DR should be followed. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk
  ) 12:04, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

So does this mean I can delete virtually the entire article and then discuss what should be re-added on the talk page? No, I didn't think so. You shouldn't have to gain a consensus for every little detail that goes into an article as long as its relevant and sourced. And all of the details that were reverted by this user were. Wikipedia is a joke. Particled (talk) 07:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: [146]

• 1st revert: [147]
• 2nd revert: [148]
• 3rd revert: [149]
• 4th revert: [150]
• 5th revert: [151]
• 6th revert: [152]
• 7th revert: [153]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [154]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [155]

Comments:
after considerable work by editors with different POV, consensus was reached to include well-sourced if contentious information re: some sexual controversy in this BLP. He is a spiritual teacher. One of his admitted students engaged in a edit war, at first to remove the info, then to weasel-word it into an unrecognizable form from sources. Since then, a number of users have been created only to edit this page, making the exact same edits - suspect socks. Just reverting page over and over. Nice to have user checked without having to go through another board (these things take me a long time!)Tao2911 (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked, but not by me. 5 albert square issued an indefinite block due to possible impersonation. Nyttend (talk) 12:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: Sri Lanka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Distributor108 (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]
• 5th revert: [161]
• 6th revert: [162]

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [163]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See discussion at Talk:Sri Lanka#Official and National languages and User:Distributor108's edits

Comments:

• See also SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Astronomyinertia as evidence of additional tenaciousness. Monty₈₄₅ 18:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

• Distributor108 has now been indef blocked rendering this report moot. Monty₈₄₅ 04:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - Indef by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Page: BR Standard Class 3 2-6-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 94.13.4.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)