Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard |
---|
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 You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.
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.
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. |
|
User:SISPCM reported by Nmate (talk) (Result: )
Page: John Hunyadi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SISPCM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC) Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [1][2]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [3]
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 12:21, 17 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424218857 by Hobartimus (talk)")
- 19:17, 17 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424563560 by Hobartimus (talk)")
- 13:33, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424676474 by Nmate (talk)")
- 15:08, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424696708 by Nmate (talk)")
Comments:
Yesterday, I found myself in an edit war with the user I am reporting here. And albeit ,technically, there was no violation of 3RR going on there, the user has been consecutively made as many as 4 reverts, remainig out of 24 hour timeframe, which is officially imposed by the 3RR rule without having started any discussion on the talk page of the John Hunyadi article, while I expressed my intention on the talk page of this user that I want to discuss edits instead of edit warring. But of course I can't do that on my own. Also, It is important to note that user:Hobartimus ,who too made some reverts there, is also willing to discuss edits as his active presence on the talk page of this article speaks for itself --Nmate (talk) 08:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- The above user is lying. He never attempted to settle the issue in a civic manner, he simply reverted to the un-encyclopedic and contentious edit made by an anon. IP. User Hobartismus is part of a group of three Hungarian editors (together with user:Fakirbakir and User:Hobartimus) imposing their POV using mutual support, hectoring Romanian, Slovak, Serbian and other users with debased tactics like unjustified accusations in edit summaries, threatening and harassment. SISPCM (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that the above user, SISPCM is acting as a proxy for the banned user:Iaaasi, editing on his behalf. He might be a straight up sock of the banned user, or might be a simple meatpuppet. The above comment is even written in the usual style of Iaaasi who has a severe case of hatred against Hungarians. Please note this recent communication with the banned user which indicates further off-wiki communication. [4]. Hobartimus (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- A few recent edits of the banned user:Iaaasi are as follows [5] [6], please compare against the edits in the report. More information on the banned editor Iaaasi here[7] Hobartimus (talk) 12:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please note that the above user, SISPCM is acting as a proxy for the banned user:Iaaasi, editing on his behalf. He might be a straight up sock of the banned user, or might be a simple meatpuppet. The above comment is even written in the usual style of Iaaasi who has a severe case of hatred against Hungarians. Please note this recent communication with the banned user which indicates further off-wiki communication. [4]. Hobartimus (talk) 12:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Stale Sock issues should go to WP:SPI. Edit-warriors now warned of WP:DIGWUREN, though. Sandstein 06:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
[[User:]] reported by User:Nomoskedasticity (Result: )
User:LevenBoy reported by Armbrust Talk to me Contribs (Result: )
User being reported: LevenBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Page: Peter Edwards (artist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LevenBoy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 16:54, 12 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423690701 by HighKing (talk)POV removal of disputed term")
- 18:24, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 423854197 by HighKing (talk)")
- 16:18, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424599137 by Eliaspalmer (talk)Revert obvious sock")
- 16:11, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424731315 by HighKing (talk)nope, definitely a sock, and a POV pushing one at that")
- 16:30, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424877474 by Snowded (talk)Revert. I thought you'd given up on this, but clearly you like the disruption")
- Diff of warning: here
Page: Neil Robertson (snooker player) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Time reported: 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 20:40, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424911661 by SmackBot (talk)")
- 20:41, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424910621 by Domer48 (talk)See Talk")
- 20:51, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424913340 by Armbrust (talk)It doesn't match the surce - do I need to spell it out in words of one syllable? see Talk (and UK & I is not better)")
- Diff of warning: here
—Armbrust Talk to me Contribs 21:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- NOTE: LemonMonday another SPA account who edits in tandem with LevenBoy is now up to six reverts on the same article, three within in the last 24 hours together with some failures of WP:AGF on the talk page. The behaviour of these two really needs some admin attention--Snowded TALK 06:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- NOTE: User:Snowded also appears to be a battling warrior on this matter, having several reverts under his belt on this article but carefully avoiding 4 reverts in 24 hours. LemonMonday Talk 06:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Isn't it weird what a small wiki-world it is? No offense about the autopatrolled mess, Armbrust, seriously :> LevenBoy has only one goal: to insert the term British Isles in as many articles as possible. I'm quite familiar with this editor, and this is a SPA account if there ever was one. I suspect there are others involved, and this goes back a long way. Even if there isn't a technical 3RR violation (I see only 3 reverts vs. the usual 4 required to file a report), LevenBoy is acting disruptively as usual. Doc talk 21:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Disruptively eh! I suggest you check the facts here - carefully, like none of the anti British Isles POV pushers have done. I mean it! Check the edit history of that article, check the text in the article and how it matches the reference that I'm proposing, and check how the other reference being offfered does not match the text of the article, but do it carefully, it's a bit unclear in parts. However, you will see I'm tyotally correct in my assertions and the other editors are simply desparate to do anything not to include the term "British Isles". LevenBoy (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- You cannot rightly call other editors "POV pushers" when you engage in the exact same behavior. There are two sides to this coin and you know it. Why can you simply not move beyond this narrowest of topics and edit constructively? I have always wondered that... Doc talk 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your question is irrelevant, but did you study the detail of this case, including the article Talk page? If so, what is your conclusion, because I'm getting to the point of thinking that some of the contributiors at that page are being less than sincere. LevenBoy (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Serial edit warrior and SPA account, works in tandem with another SPA LemonMonday (see edit history of the pages referenced above. Issues appear minor but consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour, rarely engages with content. Aggressive comments and accusations against other editors are also par for the course. --Snowded TALK 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please address the issue of the discussion rather than proffering your opinions as per the above. I would also welocme your view on the facts of this matter as described at the Talk page, where, I'm sure you know I'm right. LevenBoy (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's about the "bigger picture" LevenBoy. You are an edit-warrior, you are a SPA, and any specifics of any case with you inevitably boil down to your reverting other editors on the British Isles issue. No matter how much time you take off. I am shocked you have lasted as long as you have. Seriously. Doc talk 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Come on! You're just miffed because you were blown out on that stupid sock report you filed where you thought me and TritonRocker were the same person. LevenBoy (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not really: we all make mistakes. But you continue to make the same ones time and again. You cannot get beyond edit-warring to make your point, and it's disruptive. Doc talk 22:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- And your comments on the facts of the matter - the real matter that is, concerning the bastardisation of a source text? LevenBoy (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)The issue here is a behavioral one. In general you edit war rather than use the talk page. It was behavioral evidence that resulted in the sock report on Triton Rocker and also on Lemon Monday. OK it was shown that you were not using the same IP address but there was more than enough justification for the report. While the immediate issue is 3rr, there is a strong argument for a topic ban--Snowded TALK 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well actually no, it's 2RR if you look at the facts (yes, try it some time). Two of the "reverts" were actaully a single one due to the intended revert having been superseded by a bot. LevenBoy (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's called "gaming the system". I think your disruption far exceeds your constructive content, and your guerrilla warfare tactics are tiresome and predictable. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Doc talk 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not at all. Gaming the system includes things like PRODing articles simply because they contain the words "British Isles". One could, perhaps, level the same accusation against you - you're more concerned with admin stuff like this. Anyway, what about the discussion in hand. What is your view on the assertiong being made at the talk page? LevenBoy (talk) 22:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's called "gaming the system". I think your disruption far exceeds your constructive content, and your guerrilla warfare tactics are tiresome and predictable. You are not here to build an encyclopedia. Doc talk 22:20, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well actually no, it's 2RR if you look at the facts (yes, try it some time). Two of the "reverts" were actaully a single one due to the intended revert having been superseded by a bot. LevenBoy (talk) 22:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- (ec)The issue here is a behavioral one. In general you edit war rather than use the talk page. It was behavioral evidence that resulted in the sock report on Triton Rocker and also on Lemon Monday. OK it was shown that you were not using the same IP address but there was more than enough justification for the report. While the immediate issue is 3rr, there is a strong argument for a topic ban--Snowded TALK 22:10, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- And your comments on the facts of the matter - the real matter that is, concerning the bastardisation of a source text? LevenBoy (talk) 22:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Not really: we all make mistakes. But you continue to make the same ones time and again. You cannot get beyond edit-warring to make your point, and it's disruptive. Doc talk 22:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Come on! You're just miffed because you were blown out on that stupid sock report you filed where you thought me and TritonRocker were the same person. LevenBoy (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- It's about the "bigger picture" LevenBoy. You are an edit-warrior, you are a SPA, and any specifics of any case with you inevitably boil down to your reverting other editors on the British Isles issue. No matter how much time you take off. I am shocked you have lasted as long as you have. Seriously. Doc talk 21:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Please address the issue of the discussion rather than proffering your opinions as per the above. I would also welocme your view on the facts of this matter as described at the Talk page, where, I'm sure you know I'm right. LevenBoy (talk) 21:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Serial edit warrior and SPA account, works in tandem with another SPA LemonMonday (see edit history of the pages referenced above. Issues appear minor but consistent pattern of disruptive behaviour, rarely engages with content. Aggressive comments and accusations against other editors are also par for the course. --Snowded TALK 21:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Your question is irrelevant, but did you study the detail of this case, including the article Talk page? If so, what is your conclusion, because I'm getting to the point of thinking that some of the contributiors at that page are being less than sincere. LevenBoy (talk) 21:34, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- You cannot rightly call other editors "POV pushers" when you engage in the exact same behavior. There are two sides to this coin and you know it. Why can you simply not move beyond this narrowest of topics and edit constructively? I have always wondered that... Doc talk 21:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Disruptively eh! I suggest you check the facts here - carefully, like none of the anti British Isles POV pushers have done. I mean it! Check the edit history of that article, check the text in the article and how it matches the reference that I'm proposing, and check how the other reference being offfered does not match the text of the article, but do it carefully, it's a bit unclear in parts. However, you will see I'm tyotally correct in my assertions and the other editors are simply desparate to do anything not to include the term "British Isles". LevenBoy (talk) 21:14, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend that an SPI be done on the LevenBoy & LemonMonday accounts as possible socks of User:MidnightBlueMan. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- I recommend you crawl back under your slimey little stone. Every time there's any issue such as this up you pop with your stupid suggestions about SPI or whatever other idiotic thing comes into your mind. Why not try addressing the matter in hand for a change? Try commenting on my assertions at the Talk page in question, since no-one else has bothered to do so yet, merely being content, like you, to bang on about SPIs, SPAs and other such irrelevances. LevenBoy (talk) 22:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
- Meanwhile, this lame fight over inclusion/exclusion of British Isles across Wikipedia, should be ended with blocks to accounts that begin adding or deleting BI in articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
NOTE: I'v suggseted a compromise to the above issue at User talk:Ged UK#No personal attacks ? Maybe we wait to see what he thinks. If the compromise is accepted we can all move on unscathed. LemonMonday Talk 19:15, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- That's very creative. It defies logic that LevenBoy would have gone to that much trouble to trace that edit before he inserted the phrase for his very first edit to the article. You should bring it up on the article's talk page where others who have edited the article beyond inserting the term can see it and consensus will form, instead of the admin's. This is strictly about the edit-warring issue on this board, and it seems that nothing is going to be done about it anyway. Doc talk 23:23, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
Second 3RR vio in 3 days by User:DeadSend4
User:DeadSend4 reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )
Page: Nicole Kidman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DeadSend4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: last of 8 straight revisions (02:17, 19 April 2011) to [[User:Tenebrae]
- 2nd revert: revised (19:06, 19 April 2011) User:Crohnie
- 3rd revert: last of 25 straight revisions (21:45, 19 April 2011) to [[User:Tenebrae]
- 4th revert: revised (00:07, 20 April 2011) [[User:Tenebrae]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
See notes and steps taken re: his previous 3RR vio, directly above --Tenebrae (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Comments:
User:DeadSend4, aside from being uncivil, indeed borderline abusive, at his latest talk-page comments here, is apparently attempting to evade his block (See Nicole Kidman history here) through anon IP 24.92.19.152, which, despite this being its one-and-only edit, makes the same wholesale reversion that DeadSend4 has been making.
Another of the multiple editors he is warring with, User:Crohnie, also noted this at the above talk-page post. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:24, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
User:68.99.91.135 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: )
Page: Nanuet, New York (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.99.91.135 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
See contribs. TwoThree (third added since posting this) edits today, but this same edit pattern goes back to November and has been reverted by a number of independent editors.
The IP editor persistently adds the same para of text to the same article. It's not an unreasonable edit at first sight, but it makes three claims that should be, but aren't, referenced. As it has been regularly reverted by others, it needs a reference before it can be added, per standard policy.
I came to this editor's contribs through POV statements (similarly repetitive) on an unrelated article. As it's an IP, then it may not be the same editor.
There has been no communication from this editor, by either edit summary, response to warning templates, or through talk pages.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link
Comments:
Andy Dingley (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Sam Degelia reported by User:Nkgal (Result: )
Page: Charles Harrelson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sam Degelia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [8]
- 1st revert: 19:34, 16 April 2011
- 2nd revert: 17:51, 19 April 2011
- 3rd revert: 14:02, 20 April 2011
- 4th revert: 15:39, 20 April 2011
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 13:28, 20 April 2011
Comments:
This user has had a periodic edit war on this article since February 2009, and was blocked for it in April 2009, but returned in 2010 and again this month. User:Kww, an admin, semi-protected the page since the user was switching between their login and their IP address, though they've continued to edit the talk page using their IP address. The user has been trying to refocus a section on a tertiary character by citing a file they uploaded to the Commons. I've been trying to remove that citation, explaining Wikipedia can't be used to cite itself. The file they uploaded has been already deleted twice for copyright violations. The user has had no edits on other articles, or even in other sections of this one article. Given their username, there's also a strong possibility that they have a conflict of interest. Looking for a little help!--Nkgal (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Tgandz reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: User indef blocked)
Page: Palestinian people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tgandz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [13]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A
Comments:
Palestinian people, like all articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, is subject to a 1RR restriction.
Please read this editor's edit summaries to get a sense of where her/his head is. Consideration should be given to a long-term, possible indef, block. Frankly, I would have done it myself were I not involved. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Never mind. I see that User:Tgandz was indef-blocked while I typed this notice. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 05:48, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Dimestore reported by User:Catfish Jim and the soapdish (Result: )
Page: Kent Hovind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dimestore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [14]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]
Comments: Editor has been warned about edit warring, but has continued. No attempt has been made to reach a consensus. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 13:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Further comment Editor claims not to have read the 3RR warning before making final revert. Inexperienced editor, so is probably unaware of WP policies. A block may not be necessary, a note from an admin may be sufficient. Catfish Jim & the soapdish 14:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
RESPONSE: This was my reply to Catfish Jim's message to me regarding the edit war:
'"Hi,
thanks for your e-mail. I just saw it. I changed the sentence again but if it is reverted, I'll avoid the edit war. I already put the explanation in the talk page, otherwise I'll just appeal to place a POV tag on the article. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dimestore (talk • contribs) 13:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)"'
If the understanding was that I changed it AFTER reading the message, then it is wrong. I had changed it PRIOR to reading his message, which is why I had wrote "I just saw it," meaning I had just seen the warning AFTER I made the final edit to correct the POV sentence that is threatening the neutrality of the Kent Hovind article. A warning is not necessary. A consensus has not been reached because nobody has made any replies to my explanations in the talk page. I am willing to reach consensus. Those, however, who wish to push a POV statement and present it as fact are not. I have presented my case to both WP:RSN and WP:NPOV to dispute the contentious sentence.Dimestore (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Interferometrist reported by User:86.183.175.94
Interferometometrist keeps reverting the article Vacuum Tube to incude an invalid definitionn of a term.
Last reversion here: here
I have requested a citation that the term is as he claims here
His reaction is to simply delete the tag here
I am perfectly entitled to challenge material added where it is incorrect. I am also perfectly entitled to remove unsourced material. Interferometrist has sought to effectively prevent my challenging his inaccurate information by getting the article protected so that I can't challenge him. This seems to be an abuse of the protection of articles. It isn't there to prevent invalid information being challenged. 86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
And the citation neded tag has once more been deleted here claiming that no citation is needed. This goes against WP:VERIFY
86.183.175.94 (talk) 17:27, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- There is a discussion on the article's talk page that Interferometrist has been referring to. Instead of trying to get Interferometrist sanctioned for edit warring (which you're also guilty of if they are), you should keep on discussing it on the article's talk page. Also, Interferometrist, by what I see, did not protect the page or request its protection. It was done by another editor. Zakhalesh (talk) 17:32, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Here's the user/pagelinks for convenience, by the way.
- 86.183.175.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Interferometrist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Vacuum tube (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Right. But I was just about to request the page protection (actually I should have done so a while back when we had another edit war over terminology) when someone with less patience for this crap went ahead and did the obvious thing. As far as no {CN} being needed, I invited reactions on the talk page. Anyone can thus reinstate it (but if it's done by DieSwartzPunkt I will revert that too, as he well knows). Interferometrist (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
- Well I surely agree with you about settling content disputes on the talk page. I did adress the content there when this initially arose, but it went way beyond content when this person continued to waste our time rather than seriously listening to what he was being told. This case was more clear-cut, by the way, than the previous case where you DID (briefly) grant semi-protection to this page when he was also wasting our time over a different linguistic concern (this person has been on a long crusade to rid WP of American English in favor of British English, but automatically assumes that any term he hasn't heard must be "American" -- as I've disproved -- and begins an edit war with that petty motivation).
- He even admits that he didn't understand the issue initially but then invents a different and PURELY LINGUISTIC issue: that two words which are synonyms (in the context) are not to be interchanged because HE had never heard of one. There are 134 editors watching this page and none of them felt that his {CN} was needed when I invited anyone else to revert my removal of the tag if they felt it was needed (although someone did finally add references at that position to shut him up, but those actually detract from the article where the use of the term was incidental to the purpose of the discussion). The wording he felt so strongly about removing as "unsourced" had been in the article since 2005 as "high-gain" until some time ago when I overhauled portions of the article I made it more precise: "high voltage gain," both of which meant "high mu," a more technical (and obscure) term which is synonymous with "voltage gain" (and I include both terms in the recent versions).
- I'm not interested in this particular issue so much as being able to edit without defining every little term that one person fails to have heard of. A NORMAL person (who isn't out to pick an edit war) will go educate themselves or at least discuss their concerns on the talk page (constructively) rather than spending one minute adding a tag just to waste other people's time (the purpose of adding citations is to back up FACTS, not language usage when the article isn't about linguistics). If I spend an hour (or 2 or 3) editing an article to make Wikipedia better, then I'm happy with what I have done and feel my time was well spent. If I spend an hour (or more!) dealing with disruptive behaviour by this or other anonymous editors trying to pick a fight, my time has been wasted. For the sake of Wikipedia, editing good content shouldn't have to involve this sort of hassle and I'd be happier if every editor were forced to take responsibility for their entire history of edits, not just the ones that you can trace to the IP address they've been using for the last week :-( Interferometrist (talk) 21:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
== User:68.194.239.60 reported by User:XLR8TION
Anonymous user (IP address of 68.194.239.60) is causing problems on several articles including Puerto Rican people, Dominican immigration to Puerto Rico, and Puerto Ricans in the United States. User is apparent sockpuppet of banned editor User:Afrodr. Others editors such as User:SamEV have reverted edits and and have pointed the fact that user is posting unbased claims with no concrete evidence. I require some help here on what to do as I have reverted an article three times, but do not want to cross the 3RR rule. Please help!--XLR8TION (talk) 19:06, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Traditha reported by User:SQGibbon (Result: )
Page: Brooke Logan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Traditha (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [22]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [27]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [28]
Comments:
In addition to the 3RR warning and the article's Talk page I made the following attempts to engage the editor in discussion:
1
2
3
4
I also sought help from the WP:SOAPS community here
The edits this person is making are entirely unsourced, made up of original research, completely in-universe, and notability hasn't been established. Not only are Wikipedia guidelines not being followed but even the soap opera project's guidelines are being ignored (here).
I've also left messages in my edit summaries: 1 2 3
It was a different editor who initially trimmed the article down here
I know that I'm guilty of edit-warring myself but I was really trying to get the editor to engage in discussion and honestly trying keep the article from being unencyclopedic. Thus far the editor has refused to even acknowledge my attempts at discussion or even leave any kind of edit summary. SQGibbon (talk) 22:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
User:212.124.170.220 reported by User:John (Result: )
Page: 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 212.124.170.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Adds material
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:212.124.170.220
No recent talk page discussion, but the article has long been subject to shall we say nationalistic editing. I just added this to try to resolve the situation but I am reluctant to get involved in a discussion if this user is just going to revert their preferred version ad infinitum. I'd like this anon editor to get a block or a stern warning about edit-warring. Obviously I am not able to do it as I reverted the addition once. --John (talk) 02:47, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
User:Financeguy222 reported by User:Insider201283 (Result: )
Page: Amway Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Financeguy222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [33]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [38]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [39]
Comments:1. It would be appreciated if you could revert the page to the version with my hard work if any blocks are added! 2. I placed a 3RR warning on FG222's page, he removed it[40].
--Insider201283 (talk) 05:02, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
User:AndresHerutJaim reported by User:Owain the Ist
This editor has continually reverted well sourced information without any discussion or excuse.He has done it again and again in the following articles and others.
[41]1
[42]2
[43]3
[44]4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs) 05:59, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Great minds think alike: :Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Owain the 1st Cptnono (talk) 06:01, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
- Cannot see that they do actually as you never reported the guy responsible for vandalism and I did.Owain the 1st (talk) 06:15, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
Others have complained about him reverting/editing stuff without reason as well. [45]1 [46]2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owain the 1st (talk • contribs) 06:22, 22 April 2011 (UTC)