Jump to content

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎User:Collect reported by User:MastCell (Result: ): my life is complete - Nomo has managed to comment
→‎User:Collect reported by User:MastCell (Result: ): Do take care not to represent your block log in too generous a light.
Line 623: Line 623:
It's been over three years since Collect was last blocked, though it's somewhat striking that ''all'' of his six blocks in the 2008 — 2011 period were for reverting too much (3RR or edit warring or breaching 1RR or 0RR restrictions). Collect, keeping your nose clean for three years builds up a kind of reluctance to block, at least in me, similar to the way one doesn't like to sully a completely clean block log. You ''were'' edit warring, and I don't find your arguments above especially convincing. But there ''are'' arguments, there exist certain possible complications, so I won't block at this time. But please be aware that I was within a whisker of doing it, so if you'd like your 2012 — 2014 (incidentally almost all of 2011, too) block log to continue looking good, don't act like this again. I'm pretty offended by your tone in much of the above, also. For an editor as experienced as you to pick on the lack of a formal 3RR warning "before you let both barrels loose", doesn't do you any favours either. Another admin may make a different call, so I'm leaving the "result" field open. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC).
It's been over three years since Collect was last blocked, though it's somewhat striking that ''all'' of his six blocks in the 2008 — 2011 period were for reverting too much (3RR or edit warring or breaching 1RR or 0RR restrictions). Collect, keeping your nose clean for three years builds up a kind of reluctance to block, at least in me, similar to the way one doesn't like to sully a completely clean block log. You ''were'' edit warring, and I don't find your arguments above especially convincing. But there ''are'' arguments, there exist certain possible complications, so I won't block at this time. But please be aware that I was within a whisker of doing it, so if you'd like your 2012 — 2014 (incidentally almost all of 2011, too) block log to continue looking good, don't act like this again. I'm pretty offended by your tone in much of the above, also. For an editor as experienced as you to pick on the lack of a formal 3RR warning "before you let both barrels loose", doesn't do you any favours either. Another admin may make a different call, so I'm leaving the "result" field open. [[User:Bishonen|Bishonen]] | [[User talk:Bishonen|talk]] 10:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC).
:Actually three of the blocks ''more than three years ago'' were for 1RR - and 2 were quickly reversed by AN discussion (in one case, the block was found to be by a specifically involved admin of all things). Cheers -- but now Nomo has commented, my life is complete <g>. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
:Actually three of the blocks ''more than three years ago'' were for 1RR - and 2 were quickly reversed by AN discussion (in one case, the block was found to be by a specifically involved admin of all things). Cheers -- but now Nomo has commented, my life is complete <g>. [[User:Collect|Collect]] ([[User talk:Collect|talk]]) 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
::I see one block that was overturned; in the remaining cases where a block was lifted, it appears to have been after commitments by you to go forth and sin no more&mdash;often under additional editing restrictions which aren't always immediately apparent from the block log. For instance, when King of Hearts lifted his block on you in 2010 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=King+of+Hearts&page=User%3ACollect&year=&month=-1&tagfilter=]), the (un)block log entry just says "''By mutual consent''". The discussion on your talk page with the blocking administrator, however, notes that you were placed under a 1-revert-per-week restriction on two articles as a condition of unblocking: [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Collect&oldid=388569657#October_2010].
::I would say that you definitely exhibited more skill than most at reading the writing on the wall when you were blocked, and were able to formulate or agree to community-acceptable unblock terms with credible alacrity. I further don't think that judgement errors you made years ago should be considered with the same weight they might if they had happened more recently&mdash;though they should not be ignored entirely, either. However, you do yourself no favors when you invite readers here to incorrectly infer that many of your previous blocks were not appropriately placed. [[User:TenOfAllTrades|TenOfAllTrades]]([[User_talk:TenOfAllTrades|talk]]) 14:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


== [[User:Michael josh]] reported by [[User:Aspects]] (Result: ) ==
== [[User:Michael josh]] reported by [[User:Aspects]] (Result: ) ==

Revision as of 14:37, 12 June 2014

    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard
    Shortcuts
    Update this page

    This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

    You must notify any user you have reported.

    You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

    You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

    Additional notes
    • When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
    • The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
    • Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
    • Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.
    Definition of edit warring
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

    Click here to create a new report

    User:AzraeL9128 reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: 24 hours)

    Page: 2014 pro-Russian conflict in Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: AzraeL9128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [1]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [2]
    2. [3]
    3. [4]
    4. [5]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]

    Comments:

    Previous warning on talk page concerning personal attacks [8].

    This user could potentially be the same person as [9] who made essentially the same edit earlier and then reverted three times before AzraeL9128 jumped in. The rhetoric in the personal attacks that the user was previously warned about resembles the comments by 2A02 on the talk page of this article. Regardless, even if not, there's a 3RR violation here. Note that AzraeL9128 has failed to participate in the talk page discussion (that's if 2A02 is not him).Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:61.245.160.221 reported by User:NeilN (Result: Protected )

    Page
    American Academy of Financial Management (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    61.245.160.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 04:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Please address the issue raised at the talk page rather than accusing others of controlling the article."
    2. 05:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612170095 by NeilN (talk)But still that is single source."
    3. 05:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612171230 by NeilN (talk)So? please discuss on the Talk Page."
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 05:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on American Academy of Financial Management. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 05:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Single Source */"
    2. 05:31, 9 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Single Source */"
    Comments:

    One more with different IP. [10] NeilN talk to me 05:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    A team of editors who are showing 3RR for other editors to silence them while they themselves group together to evade 3RR and super impose their POV on the article.61.245.160.221 (talk) 05:44, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Translation: Editors with no COI looking after an article plagued by socks and whitewashing. --NeilN talk to me 05:58, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Absolutely, editors representing the AAFM have attempted numerous times to control this article. A number of socks have been blocked, and I have no doubt that these IPs represent the same editors. BMK (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If we represent the AAFM, why you can't represent the two previous directors, King and Baring, took the founder of the AAFM, George Mentz, to court for libel, slander and defamation after he made numerous claims publicly on various websites about them and their business activities..61.245.163.56 (talk) 09:47, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, not to be too obvious about it, because the editors who are reverting your changes have a track record which you cannot duplicate.

    NeilN, for instance, has been here since 2005, and has almost 60,000 edit to articles and to almost 23,000 pages, while I have around 144,000 edits to about 29,000 pages. If you want to make the argument that we are under the control of King and Baring, you go right ahead and do so, only I think you had better wear ear protection for tne disdainful response you'll receive. BMK (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Alaminalpha reported by User:HangingCurve (Result: 48 hours)

    Page
    Sani Abacha (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Alaminalpha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. Consecutive edits made from 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) to 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
      1. 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 611234829 by Faizan (talk)"
      2. 23:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 610246074 by HangingCurve (talk)"
    2. 23:27, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612141194 by HangingCurve (talk)"
    3. Consecutive edits made from 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC) to 23:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
      1. 23:34, 8 June 2014 (UTC) ""
      2. 23:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC) ""
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 23:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC) "General note: Removal of content, blanking on Sani Abacha. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    User is baldly reverting to a WP:PEA--laden version of the article. While normal practice calls for this to be resolved at the talk page, since the reverted version borders on vandalism I'm taking it here. HangingCurveSwing for the fence 12:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Blocked – 48 hours. They have been edit warring at Sani Abacha and removing well-sourced negative material about the leader's financial misconduct. This user has been here since 2007 but has never left a comment on a talk page. On June 1 he was edit warring at the Nigeria article to remove well-sourced demographic information. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Lukejordan02 reported by User:Retrohead (Result: Already blocked)

    Page: UFC Fight Night: Henderson vs. Khabilov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Lukejordan02 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [11]
    2. [12]
    3. [13]
    4. [14]
    5. [15]
    6. [16]
    7. [17]
    8. [18]
    9. [19]
    10. [20]
    11. [21]
    12. [22]
    13. [23]

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [24]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in this case, so I haven't initiated a discussion.--Retrohead (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Comments:[reply]

    This user is now falsifying cases having got into a edit war with this user via Megadeth discography which resulted in us both being blocked the first thing this user decides to do after being unblocked is to make up a case about me I want a full investigation into this user please, kind regards. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As anyone who checks out the links will see, most of the revisions I did was reverting vandalism which is not apart of the 3RR. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This user is also sending messages to my talk page without reason

    This pasted text makes it look like the other user posted this here, and is not necessary for this report. Dreadstar ☥ 06:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion Information icon Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Retrohead (talk) 21:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    June 2014 Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at UFC Fight Night: Henderson vs. Khabilov. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

    Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. --Retrohead (talk) 21:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    1 I am not currently engaged in an edit war and 2 my edits haven't been reverted as my edits were good as, reflected by 3 other editors who sent me thanks for them. Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    He has since sent me another claiming I have personally attacked him on here, Lukejordan02 (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Catflap08 reported by User:Noisemonkey (Result: Protected)

    Page: Nichiren Shōshū (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Catflap08 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


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

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 1 [25]
    2. 2 [26]
    3. 3 [27]
    4. 4 [28]

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

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noisemonkey (talk • contribs)

    Comments:

    Catflap08 reverted only three times ([30], [31], [32]). The first and second entries in your report are the same edit, which makes it hard to assume good faith from you in filing this report. Also, it was almost a week ago, and you didn't warn him or or notify him of this discussion. I'm willing to bet money an admin's not going to touch this except to close it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Blackguard SF reported by User:70.215.4.43 (Result: IP Blocked)

    Page: An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Blackguard SF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User:70.215.4.43, User:70.215.10.154 reported by User:Blackguard SF (Result: Blocked)

    Page: An Jung-geun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Page: History of Scottish devolution (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)


    User being reported: 70.215.4.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 70.215.10.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [33]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [34]
    2. [35]
    3. [36]
    4. [37]
    1. [38]
    2. [39]
    3. [40]


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

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

    Comments:


    New user using two IPs two make wildy POV edits and revert any reverts. Full disclosure: user attempted to open an ANEW on me earlier today. Blackguard 23:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:האורים והתומים reported by User:Qwertyus (Result: 48 hours)

    Page
    INSEAD (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    האורים והתומים (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612334974 by Qwertyus (talk) - I am not a registered user but somebody has to lock this page down like the user in Hebrew has attempted. Too many knuckle heads"
    2. 09:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 612333966 by Qwertyus (talk) - Reason for undoing?"
    3. 09:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "Stopping the unsupported edit wars from occurring and initiating talks before allowing edits"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 09:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on INSEAD. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 10:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Malicious, unjustified removals or defamations against INSEAD */"
    Comments:

    Even if the user is not a sockmaster, they did violate WP:3RR. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:06, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Hahnchen reported by User:Ryulong (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Hahnchen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [41]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [47]

    Comments:
    For the past couple of days, there has been an ongoing discussion at Talk:Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire#"CoroCoro leaks" as well as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Request for outside input on Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire regarding the nature of websites posting information from published material that is currently not available to the general public. Arguments have been put forward by myself and other editors saying WP:V requires that anyone can independently verify the content which is not possible as the print material is not yet available, while Hahnchen and another editor argue that being posted on this particular website which is normally considered a reliable source automatically grants it verifiable status. Despite no general consensus about the issue, Hahnchen decided to restore the contested content despite my present disagreement. I made all attempts to engage in discussion this issue but Hahnchen simply disagrees with all the points presented by multiple editors and is instead siding with another editor and restoring the content of questionable sourcing. He has also not engaged in any other arguments, other than comparing this whole situation about Pokémon fansites posting illegally obtained photographs to Edward Snowden's whistleblowing on the NSA.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Also in his retaliatory report below, it shows how he effectively gamed me into breaking 3RR on this instance despite being repeatedly told that consensus is against his additions.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note how even Ryulong's Diff of attempted resolution shows him trying to discredit GameSpot's editorial process just because he too does not have access to the sources. A reliable source can certify information that would otherwise be unreliable through their professional editorial processes, that's the definition of a reliable source. I am trying to add reliably sourced information relevant to the subject, and it is consistently being reverted. Here is the source - http://www.gamespot.com/articles/pokemon-omega-ruby-alpha-sapphire-remakes-add-new-mega-evolutions/1100-6420187/ - hahnchen 15:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the only diff I could find when I was doing the whole automated thing that didn't work. The source is problematic and Masem and I have been saying that for the past two days but you just want the content to be posted because you think GameSpot staff members bless anything that they post.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And GameSpot doesn't have access to the source either. They're posting content originally from the unreliable source Serebii.net where they say they found photos on 2chan or some other Japanese website of pages from the magazine. Serebii is unreliable and anyone who reports on them in a chain is unreliable. This is fact and supported by WP:V, as is the argument that because no one can go get the magazine to know if it's correct (with as what happened with IGN's reporting on The Last Guardian over the weekend) we may have completely incorrect information. At least until they make the announcement at E3 in 5 minutes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You are not in a position to override the judgment of a reliable source. I value the professional editorial processes at GameSpot over your judgment. I'm not interested in playing source-sleuth with you, and I don't like the game you've tried to impose on everyone else. There are times that reliable sources are wrong, and when they're wrong, they issue a retraction, and we can edit the article to reflect that. But for the last two days, you have been suppressing relevant, reliably sourced information from Wikipedia, because you don't like it. - hahnchen 15:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not the only person to point out that in this situation this website cannot be considered a reliable source because they're reporting on rumors posted on a fansite. Yeah it's probably 100% true but when we are 100% aware that the content is not available to the general public yet we should use discretion when discussing it on Wikipedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, consensus on WT:VG seemed to be that "If rumors are notable enough to post, this is good to go". Stating the leak as true information "confirmed by CoroCoro" was wrong, and correct to remove. However, changing the content to "Leaks of CoroCoro said this" changed the discussion to a whole new ballgame. We are no longer trying to assert WP:V because we aren't verifying that the content is true, nobody can do that, as you said. We are verifying the existence of the rumor, and then debating on whether or not it is within content guidelines for us to include reports of rumors. However, you became blind and never saw the discussion change, and continued to argue for the variability of the rumor as fact. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There's nothing that says this rumor is really notable to discuss. And rumor mongering isn't something Wikipedia should do.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that multiple reliable sources reported on it makes it notable. They wouldn't have made whole articles about it if the information was like a leak of a single name. That the leak contained such substantial information made it notable enough for multiple reliable sources to report on, thus allowing us to report on it. But like I said, that is what the WT:VG discussion was trying to move towards, whether the information was allowed under content guidelines, as it met WP:V and WP:N just fine. But it got distracted by the fact that "the information can't be verified" because the articles are sourcing Serebii, which makes no sense. We don't need to verify the information as fact if the content was rewritten to not treat it as such. Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The whole issue is that their known source isn't reliable so why should they be reliable? But now it's all moot because of the Pokémon trailer that was just shown.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't get it. It doesn't need to be reliable, because we should treat it as a rumor and not fact. We can verify the fact that a rumor existed, by the numerous reliable sources that reported on it. However, as I am just now discovering, WP:VGSCOPE states that rumors should not be included in our articles. That is the guideline you should be throwing around from now on, not WP:V or WP:RS. If the content says "Leaks of CoroCoro contained this", we can verify that with reliable sources. The question is, "should we?" Blake (Talk·Edits) 16:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No. None of the sources have treated the content as a "rumor". They've presented everything as fact. Just look at GameSpot's piece. They say that information from CoroCoro has shown up online (from Serebii) and are just presenting the information as fact because none of them are aware that CoroCoro won't be out for 3 more days.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You may have a point there. If all the sources treat the leak as fact, we can't treat it as a leak, because the sources treat it as fact. I am sure that at least one of those sources said it was unconfirmed information from a leak.... right? Blake (Talk·Edits) 17:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The only website out of the 4 that were posted by Artichoker, myself, and yourself that refers to any of this as a "leak" was Slashgear. Gamespot, Siliconera, and Kotaku just present it as is, as did Serebii. None of them acknowledge the fact that the CoroCoro issue isn't out yet. Not to mention that official information following the E3 conference proves some of the content posted by the websites factually incorrect (the new forms are translated as "Primal").—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that Ryulong has edited the report to include diffs from other editors (in this case User:Artichoker). When I reinserted the information into the article, I also made clear of the sourcing and removed the factual inaccuracy that Ryulong complained about in this edit. - hahnchen 16:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Removed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Ryulong reported by User:Hahnchen (Result: Both warned)

    Page: Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

    User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&oldid=612062591
    Diffs of the user's reverts:
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612116810&oldid=612114515
    2. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612142441&oldid=612142215
    3. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612144209&oldid=612143841
    4. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612364300&oldid=612338481
    5. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612364973&oldid=612364635
    6. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pok%C3%A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire&diff=612365431&oldid=612365211

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARyulong&diff=612367166&oldid=612367111

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Request_for_outside_input_on_Pok.C3.A9mon_Omega_Ruby_and_Alpha_Sapphire

    Comments:
    I wasn't initially involved in this, but got drawn in seeing a thread on WT:VG. Information about the subject has been leaked, and it has been picked up by reliable sources, who are reporting the contents of said leak as fact. User:Artichoker added the content on 8th June, and every time was reverted by Ryulong. After clarifying that GameSpot is a reliable source and making sure that the facts were referenced, I attempted to re-add the information, only to get Ryulong's insistence that his own amateur judgements trump those of a industry standard professional publication. - hahnchen 15:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't make a retaliatory report. There has been plenty of discussion to say that in this situation GameSpot's reliability is non-existant. You and Artichoker have just ignored and argued against it.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:28, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not in retaliation, I was writing the report and you fired first, I thought it best to just copy and paste what I had into this one. I wasn't quick enough to compile that in three minutes. Let's keep it together. - hahnchen 15:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "Being right" doesn't make you immune to breaking 3RR yourself. If a dispute is taking place, both parties should stop. There is no "right version" and both parties are at fault for edit warring during that time. There was never really substantial consensus to back up your reasoning Ryulong, and either version was both just as right and wrong as the other. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Hahnchen. Reports aren't combined like this and this is definitely retaliatory. If you had evidence for 6 reverts as you have here you could have reported already but you only did it after I sent you the AN3 warning. These should be separate as all reports are. And Blake, there was no consensus for the inclusion. Two people being unimpressed by two other people's arguments doesn't cancel one out and validate the other, even though status quo was exclusion.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    (Man, I've got like 5 edit conflicts trying to post this...) There was no consensus for the exclusion either. And as I said, "being right" doesn't give you divine power to break the rules. Both of you edit warred. The reasoning behind this is that if you were really right, and had consensus,SOMEONE ELSE would have reverted it to the "right version" and you wouldn't have had to. I was going to revert you myself, but Hanchen was too quick, so it is a little disappointing he got an additional strike because I was too slow. Blake (Talk·Edits) 15:44, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know. I attempt WP:BRD every god damn time but people just edit war the content back in again. I have done everything I can to engage in discussion on this matter for the past 48 hours but everyone wants this stupid unsubstantiated but probably 100% true rumor that will be verified within the next hour posted two days ago.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment - I wanted to keep this together with the report above, but got reverted several times and thought that the 3RR noticeboard was probably the worst place to have an edit war. - hahnchen 15:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, reports are never combined as you wanted these two to be.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:49, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, although given the current edits at Pokémon Omega Ruby and Alpha Sapphire, it looks like you've gotten over it and no longer using edit summaries as shouting exhibitions. - hahnchen 15:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, I've thrown in the towel even though I totally intend to rewrite the section based on reliable sources that do not mention CoroCoro but rather Nintendo's digital E3 conference which goes live in 5 minutes.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 15:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Both of these have been resolved so can we just withdraw both of them and be done with, because any block after this point would be punitive which isn't what blocks are for.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm fine with whatever, I'm expecting a trout. - hahnchen 20:17, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not as optimistic.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:24, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know what the process is here, but I'm fine with these being closed without further action. - hahnchen 21:21, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah. The more important thing now is trying to figure out what to do with these situations in the future, which just requires more discussion at WT:VG.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:41, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: My suggestion would be to block Ryulong for 72 hours and Hahnchen for 24 hours. Someone with Ryulong's block history ought to be more careful. Hahnchen should not be trying to join him in the pantheon of edit warriors. Ryulong's revert war against the game announcement has no obvious justification in policy. A block woud be preventive in this case because Ryulong is otherwise likely to continue this pattern indefinitely. The real question is whether the block should be much longer. Ryulong has nine past blocks that appear correct. User:Blake's comments above are noteworthy. EdJohnston (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • FWIW, WP:NEWSORG specifically warns against reporting on rumor, which (until as of this morning when Nintendo actually confirmed the details) was the information being attempted to be inserted into the article. I can't speak to the actions, since this is not a case covered under the exceptions to WP:3RR. --MASEM (t) 21:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NEWSORG is a guideline while WP:V is a policy. It's true that neither one provides an exemption from edit warring under WP:3RRNO. Ryulong recommends more discussion at WT:WikiProject Video games. While discussion is good, the videogame project can't issue exemptions from the edit warring policy either. EdJohnston (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I did agree that 3RRNO has no applicable exemptions here and can't justify the action, but I stand by that Ryulong has a very valid argument against inclusion. --MASEM (t) 22:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Result: Both parties warned per the above discussion. Premature announcement of a video game (if that's what it was) is not vandalism and is not a BLP violation. There is no excuse for this under WP:3RRNO. Both parties opened complaints here and both had already broken 3RR, so it's unclear what they expected to happen. It would be better to take the to issue to admins *before* you go over the limit. If you can't control your own reverts you will face unpredictable consequences. EdJohnston (talk) 02:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:2.191.3.84 reported by User:Royroydeb (Result: )

    Page
    2013–14 Iran Pro League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    2.191.3.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 10:02, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Foreign players */"
    2. 20:21, 23 May 2014 "/* Foreign players */"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning


    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Unexplained removal of contents. In Asian leagues, there is a qouta for foreign players and so this table is very important. I cant understand why this IP is reverting these edits without explaining the reason. RRD13 (talk) 16:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Preator1 reported by User:Eflatmajor7th (Result: Protected)

    Page: Ivory tower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Preator1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [48]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [49]
    2. [50]
    3. [51]


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

    Comments:
    I didn't put anything for the diff of edit warring because I don't understand what goes there; the individual diffs seem to make the point. I have received zero communication from this user regarding a paragraph that I don't think belongs in the article, and they have not responded to my comment on the talk page.

    Eflatmajor7th (talk) 02:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, I see the template I should have put on the user's talk page now. And thanks for protecting the article. Eflatmajor7th (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:50.81.188.239 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Gone with the Wind (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 50.81.188.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [53]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [54]
    2. [55]
    3. [56]
    4. [57] (first 4 reverts in 24 hour period)
    5. [58] (last 4 reverts in 24 hour period)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [59]

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [60]

    Comments:

    Further background: I have tried to explain to the IP through edit summaries, contacting the editor at their talk page and initiating discussion on the article talk page. There is never any response from them other than a revert. I think my good faith has stretched as far as it can go now and I am being dragged deeper and deeper into an edit war, so I'm turning it over to ANI. If the editor won't discuss the issue or stop inserting the content there is nothing further I can do anyway.

    There are some other concerns. Initially I thought it was just a case of the editor correcting something and not providing a source, but the editor made a further edit that I categorically know is not true. There are a wealth of sources documenting the film's premiere in Atlanta, so I am beginning to suspect the editor is deliberately inserting false information.

    It is also worth noting that this IP address has been blocked five times already and has just come off a year long block (see [61]). Betty Logan (talk) 04:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Enlightened one088 reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: Blocked)

    Page: Circumcision (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Enlightened one088 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [62]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [63]
    2. [64]
    3. [65]
    4. [66]

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

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

    Comments:

    I have continuously undone edits which users have repeatedly deleted and vandalized. Originally I had received an email from "Doc James" stating to post reliable sources. I took his advice into consideration and re-posted my section with a reliable source from "PubMed.gov". According to "Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine), "Pubmed" is a reliable and legitimate source which I used for my edit.~~enlightened_one088~~

    Another revert here [69] occurring after this was filled. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:48, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And another one here [70] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Possibly. The other new account just hit its 4 day old mark but hasn't made 10 edits yet so cannot join in. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:51, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Antoniopadillarocks reported by User:Ahecht (Result: Blocked)

    Page
    Happy (Pharrell Williams song) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    Antoniopadillarocks (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 23:31, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "This was not fake. Not fake, really really not fake. Not fake. Not fake. That one is real. Real real real. Real."
    2. 00:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "This is not unsourced. This was Sourced! So do not remove!"
    3. 12:22, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "This not Unsoucred. Please do not remove that or I will get mad at you!"
    4. 15:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Not fake. Please do not remove and do not block me! Because I hate blocks!"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 13:32, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Happy (Pharrell Williams song). (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page
    1. 13:44, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* In Popular Culture */ new section"
    Comments:

    In addition to edit warring, this user has a long history of using antagonistic and uncivil edit summaries, including personal threats. This user has been blocked before for disruptive editing. Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 15:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:YJAX reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

    Page
    LG G3 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported
    YJAX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Previous version reverted to
    Diffs of the user's reverts
    1. 17:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "The lead should reflect the body so there is no problem with highlighting its key features. Again, you cannot remove or modify sourced material as per WP:Verfiability. I have addressed your tone issue and added further sources."
    2. 10:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Which is no reason to blank out sourced material as per WP:Verifiability."
    3. 17:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC) "reverting unexplained removal of source material"
    Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning
    1. 15:01, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */ new section"
    2. 15:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */"
    3. 17:56, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */"
    4. 17:57, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "/* Re: G3 */"
    5. 18:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on LG G3. (TW)"
    Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page


    Comments:

    Insists on specific wording and redundant citations, attacks attempts to revise and copyedit lead by stating that per WP:V, content that is sourced must not be removed from an article (it is in fact, the opposite, as verifiability does not guarantee inclusion) ViperSnake151  Talk  18:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have never argued that WP:V guarantees inclusion. You have clearly misinterpreted this policy - You're suppose to not modify the core meaning of the source, which would constitute to violating WP:OR. You have been equally involved in edit warring, if not more, so it's an irony you're reporting me here. First you reverted by giving no explanation whatsoever and then after being challenged, claiming that the lead should not contain material from the body, when in fact the opposite is the case - The lead should reflect on the body. I have made attempts to reach a consensus by addressing your concern with regards to the tone and added further sources, yet other than engaging in a pointless edit war, you do not seem very constructive at all. See User:ViperSnake151's edit warring diffs:

    YJAX (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No no no, I said the lead must summarize from the body, and that unless its contentious or something, you usually do not have to recite things in the lead if they are cited in the body. And I also do not think that edits made to continue one after a revert count as a "revert" per se. And how did I modify the core meaning? Is it OR not to refer to the ahem laser autofocus as laser autofocus? ViperSnake151  Talk  18:29, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:202.159.165.92 reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Semi-protected)

    Page: McMinnville UFO photographs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: 202.159.165.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612537088&oldid=612536851

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612530070&oldid=612525614
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612534315&oldid=612533878
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612535963&oldid=612535083
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612536851&oldid=612536051
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612537133&oldid=612537088
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=McMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=611891391&oldid=611740936


    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:202.159.165.92&oldid=612534627

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMcMinnville_UFO_photographs&diff=612535764&oldid=607721574

    Comments:
    IP requested assistance at WP:Help Desk and was advised to discuss on article talk page and stop edit-warring. IP is repeatedly inserting non-neutral language into article. Poster has not been editing article. Apparently another editor starting reporting the edit war here and did not finish.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Mdpoly5 and User:Leevank reported by User:Amortias (Result: )

    Page: Michael U. Gisriel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Users being reported: Mdpoly5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Leevank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous version reverted to: [76]

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. [77]
    2. [78]
    3. [79]
    4. [80]
    • And another 62 reverts at the time of posting this

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned by other user

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

    Comments:


    User:Collect reported by User:MastCell (Result: )

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

    Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 04:53, 8 June 2014

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

    1. 17:57, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit, with a spurious claim of SYN/OR)
    2. 18:23, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)
    3. 18:48, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)
    4. 20:17, 11 June 2014 (undoes part of preceding edit)

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Collect is an experienced editor, well aware of 3RR, and previously blocked at least once for violating it.

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

    Comments:
    Collect is repeatedly reverting changes to this article, reaching 4RR within less than 3 hours. There seems to be little or no support for his contention that this is a BLP issue. Even in a best case, the issue is sufficiently borderline that he should be soliciting feedback rather than edit-warring. MastCell Talk 22:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note the last edit was simply regarding a WTA where Wikipedia's voice clearly stated that a person is "labelled a climate change denier". , and that I started a proper discussion at BLP/N. In short I HAVE ASKED FOR FEEDBACK. Is that sufficiently clear? And I do regard using "climate change denier" as a descriptive word for a living person to be "contentious" and further I have noted that such edits are subject to the BLP strictures placed on such articles at the Climate Change Arbitration decision, which I cited. Calling a person a "climate change denier" on its face falls under the ArbCom rules. This "report" is clearly not valid at this point, and the fact the OP seems not to regard WP:BLP/N to be proper feedback, nor my use of the article talk page as "proper feedback" seems rather the actual problem. As far as the outre claim that the SYNTH was not SYNTH -- MastCell actually removed that part of the edit -- meaning that he clearly agreed it was improper. BTW, MastCell -- the "warning" is supposed to be given before you let both barrels loose. Collect (talk) 22:52, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The thing is, you're supposed to ask for feedback and then stop edit-warring. This looks like a content dispute where you've failed to convince anyone that there's a BLP issue, but edit-warred nonetheless. Your consistent failure to provide actual diffs to back your constant BLP accusations should be raising red flags by now, in terms of taking your statements at face value. This is edit-warring, plain and simple.

    As for "warning" you... I tried that the last time you edit-warred and violated 3RR, just a month or two ago. I gave you a heads-up rather than reporting you. And you responded aggressively and gave me a bunch of shit about it—even though you were the one violating policy, and I was going out of my way to be courteous and give you a chance to self-revert. I'm past the point in my wiki-career where I keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. I gave you a courtesy notice when I posted this report, as per our best practices, and now it's up to someone else to decide how to handle your 4 reverts. MastCell Talk 00:44, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh -- you mean the time I self-reverted? [81]? I had not realized you were so angry that I had SELF-REVERTED then. Meanwhile, would you care to decry this edit there [82]? I would love to see you say that was against BLP. Cheers. Collect (talk) 05:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Excuse me for interrupting while the two of you are bickering, but it's been a while, MastCell, since I read the The Cynic's Guide to Wikipedia on your user page. I thought it was great the first time, and it hasn't lost any of its punch. It lightens my day in a twisted sort of way.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. As you can see, I'm getting more cynical by the minute. Eight years is probably too long for anyone to spend here. You're messing with my bickering momentum, though. :P MastCell Talk 03:11, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, it was ArbCom which ruled that bandying "climate change denier" etc. falls under BLP, and this was in an official ArbCom case. The charges that I am doing anything other than following the requirements of that case are not quite accurate at all, as are the self-serving arguments that changing "labelled" to "called" is in any iota of sense improper, while the complainant continues to revert. [85] is, IMO, a blatant WP:BLP violation on its own. Calling for action against me at that point is simply, again IMO, grossly improper. Now back to bed. Collect (talk) 05:42, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • The edit which put Collect in violation of 3RR changed "labelled" to "called". A large number of editors work on the Rubio BLP, and it was entirely unnecessary for Collect to edit-war on this particular issue: if it is a BLP problem, then other editors can take care of it -- and if it's only Collect who feels this way then consensus is against him. The inclination to edit-war in circumstances like this needs to be controlled, and since Collect can't seem to control it himself… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:47, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been over three years since Collect was last blocked, though it's somewhat striking that all of his six blocks in the 2008 — 2011 period were for reverting too much (3RR or edit warring or breaching 1RR or 0RR restrictions). Collect, keeping your nose clean for three years builds up a kind of reluctance to block, at least in me, similar to the way one doesn't like to sully a completely clean block log. You were edit warring, and I don't find your arguments above especially convincing. But there are arguments, there exist certain possible complications, so I won't block at this time. But please be aware that I was within a whisker of doing it, so if you'd like your 2012 — 2014 (incidentally almost all of 2011, too) block log to continue looking good, don't act like this again. I'm pretty offended by your tone in much of the above, also. For an editor as experienced as you to pick on the lack of a formal 3RR warning "before you let both barrels loose", doesn't do you any favours either. Another admin may make a different call, so I'm leaving the "result" field open. Bishonen | talk 10:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

    Actually three of the blocks more than three years ago were for 1RR - and 2 were quickly reversed by AN discussion (in one case, the block was found to be by a specifically involved admin of all things). Cheers -- but now Nomo has commented, my life is complete <g>. Collect (talk) 11:28, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I see one block that was overturned; in the remaining cases where a block was lifted, it appears to have been after commitments by you to go forth and sin no more—often under additional editing restrictions which aren't always immediately apparent from the block log. For instance, when King of Hearts lifted his block on you in 2010 ([86]), the (un)block log entry just says "By mutual consent". The discussion on your talk page with the blocking administrator, however, notes that you were placed under a 1-revert-per-week restriction on two articles as a condition of unblocking: [87].
    I would say that you definitely exhibited more skill than most at reading the writing on the wall when you were blocked, and were able to formulate or agree to community-acceptable unblock terms with credible alacrity. I further don't think that judgement errors you made years ago should be considered with the same weight they might if they had happened more recently—though they should not be ignored entirely, either. However, you do yourself no favors when you invite readers here to incorrectly infer that many of your previous blocks were not appropriately placed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:37, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Michael josh reported by User:Aspects (Result: )

    Page: TNA Bound for Glory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    Slammiversary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    TNA Lockdown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    TNA Sacrifice (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: Michael josh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)


    Previous TNA Bound for Glory version reverted to: [88] Previous Slammiversary version reverted to: [89] Previous TNA Lockdown version reverted to: [90] Previous TNA Sacrifice version reverted to: [91]

    Diffs of the user's reverts: TNA Bound for Glory

    1. [92] 20 May 2014
    2. [93] 27 May 2014
    3. [94] 2 June 2014
    4. [95] 8 June 2014
    5. [96] 8 June 2014

    Slammiversary

    1. [97] 15 May 2014
    2. [98] 27 May 2014
    3. [99] 2 June 2014
    4. [100] 8 June 2014
    5. [101] 8 June 2014

    TNA Lockdown

    1. [102] 27 May 2014
    2. [103] 2 June 2014
    3. [104] 8 June 2014

    TNA Sacrifice

    1. [105] 27 May 2014
    2. [106] 2 June 2014
    3. [107] 9 June 2014

    Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

    1. [108] Level 1, 28 May 2014
    2. [109] Level 2, 28 May 2014
    3. [110] Level 4, 6 June 2014

    Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    Comments: Michael josh keeps removing infoboxes from various wrestling articles without any edit summaries, messages on any of the articles' talk pages and does not respond to warnings left on their talk page. Michael josh was also given a level 4 vandalism warning on 8 June 2014, [111]. Aspects (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    User:Edmondhills reported by User:Jyoti.mickey (Result: )

    Page: Pune techie murder case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    User being reported: Edmondhills (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    Previous version reverted to: link

    Diffs of the user's reverts:

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

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

    Link of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

    1. [112]
    2. [113]
    3. [114]

    Comments:
    For me, I voluntarily commit that I will not edit for 48h starting now. He removed the edit warring notice on his talk page also. Aside: He also nominated two articles I edited recently for afd here: 1, 2. He has made no attempts to discuss or to clearly provide the policy for afd. He had earlier reported me in ani for a content dispute and abused another editor who participated on the discussion, I abandoned the discussion around that point. --Jyoti (talk) 09:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring&oldid=612640271"