User:Esemono/EditWars
I've tried to get him to reach a consensus but he refuses to listen and blanket reverts a number of points in the article. Most of the points that he erased he refuses to talk about. -- Esemono (talk) 13:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
No violation Second revert is by a different user. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Same user but using a different IP but that is beside the point as 1st, 3rd and 4th edits are by the same IP. -- Esemono (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- How can I know it's the same user? Without that revert, the three-revert rule isn't broken — only if there are more than three reverts is there an issue. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO, you, as closer, should have made a checkuser request. It's stale now, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Since there have been yet more reverts since the above decision was taken, I have fully protected the article for three days. Would welcome review. There appears to be a genuine content dispute here although there could be puppetry on the IP side. If the IPs collectively go over 3RR in the future I think semi-protection should be considered, since even a bona-fide dispute doesn't justify puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Please note that per below 125.160.196.145 and Esomo had already been blocked. After the blocks I advised Esomo and the Ip now at 125.160.193.79 and certainly they see it as genuine content conflict going much into detail of the available sources between two editors with 125.160.192.0 - 125.160.207.25 a dynamic IP range and 202.72.213.22 a different location. --Tikiwont (talk) 18:44, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- Since there have been yet more reverts since the above decision was taken, I have fully protected the article for three days. Would welcome review. There appears to be a genuine content dispute here although there could be puppetry on the IP side. If the IPs collectively go over 3RR in the future I think semi-protection should be considered, since even a bona-fide dispute doesn't justify puppetry. EdJohnston (talk) 16:56, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- IMHO, you, as closer, should have made a checkuser request. It's stale now, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
- How can I know it's the same user? Without that revert, the three-revert rule isn't broken — only if there are more than three reverts is there an issue. Stifle (talk) 19:57, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
- Same user but using a different IP but that is beside the point as 1st, 3rd and 4th edits are by the same IP. -- Esemono (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
