No edit summary |
|||
Line 565: | Line 565: | ||
[[User:Guanxi|guanxi]] ([[User talk:Guanxi|talk]]) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
[[User:Guanxi|guanxi]] ([[User talk:Guanxi|talk]]) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
|||
== [[User:Muboshgu]] reported by [[User:Wayiran]] (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|2011 Iranian protests}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Muboshgu}} |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. --> |
|||
Previous version reverted to: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Iranian_protests&oldid=414048682] |
|||
<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule. --> |
|||
* 1st revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Iranian_protests&diff=414070174&oldid=414050500] |
|||
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Iranian_protests&diff=414078848&oldid=414078630] |
|||
* 3rd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Iranian_protests&diff=414092510&oldid=414091535] |
|||
* 4th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Iranian_protests&diff=414249547&oldid=414249479] |
|||
* 5th revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Iranian_protests&diff=414327788&oldid=414327067] |
|||
<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary --> |
|||
<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so. --> |
|||
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Muboshgu&diff=414110618&oldid=414098475] |
|||
<!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> |
|||
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:2010%E2%80%932011_Arab_world_protests&diff=414248370&oldid=414247524] |
|||
<u>Comments: I reported him earllier, and I was told if he resumes edit-warring, I should report this. He has done just that, he is reverting again. |
|||
</u> <br /> |
|||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
Revision as of 23:12, 16 February 2011
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:Kurdo777 reported by User:Flatterworld
Page: Template:2010–2011 Arab world protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kurdo777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Continued disruptive editing, ignoring consensus and discussions. Both the Template and the article it accompanies are current and discussions are ongoing as to what the title (Arab world, Middle East, global, whatever) should be. The consensus is to include Iran regardless, under 'Related' until and unless the title is changed. Kurdo insists on deleting it, leaving our readers unable to navigate directly to Iran from each article which currently uses the Template.
Comment by Kurdo777: First of all, there has been no violation of 3RR by me, and contrary to Flatterworld's claims, there exists no consensus on this dispute, as at least three editors have opposed the inclusion of Iran on a template that deals with Arab world, since Iran is not an Arab country. Furthermore, Flatterworld has been making personal attacks against me [1], and when I warned him about it, he removed the warnings from his talk page. [2] Kurdo777 (talk) 22:38, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Eusebeus reported by User:Lost Josephine Minor (Result:no violation)
Page: Alex Gregory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Eusebeus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [3]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [9]
Comments:
I am new to writing on Wikipedia, so if my formatting is incorrect, please bear with me. The editor gives no reason for his reverts, has been unwilling to negotiate. On my first article I have very carefully sourced all of the information that I included. However, very relevant information has been continually deleted by a couple of editors. Initial concerns by those editors have been addressed, yet Eusebeus continues to revert. I have attempted to engage Eusebeus in constructive dialog, have attempted to adjust the wording of the article to make it more comfortable to others, however, he continues to make reverts to remove information which is quite clearly correct. Lost Josephine Minor (talk) 05:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- One editor versus a number of other editors (myself included) who are asking for WP:RS to substantiate claims. I can ask other editors to revert to avoid 3RR, but this is, in essence, a source dispute and the page should be protected against LJM's edit-warring in the face of multiple editor requests for substantiation. Eusebeus (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- As Eusebus points out, this is a content dispute; Lost Josephine Minor attempts to introduce material which is not supported by reliable sources. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- No 3RR violation, as these are spread out over a few days, but it is clearly edit warring between Eusebeus and Lost Josephine Minor, and any more reverts from either is likely to result in blocks. Also, Eusebeus needs to stop using rollback on non-vandal edits or his rollback permissions are likely to be revoked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:29, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- This shouldn't be characterized as edit warring between two editors. As Michael Bednarek has pointed out the SPA Lost Josephine Minor has repeatedly introduced questionable content. About six or seven different editors have been involved in one way or another (see Talk:Alex_Gregory). --Kleinzach 09:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, Eusebeus had been doing way too much reverting for me to ignore in my closing comments. I mention those two not an exclusive list but as the ones doing enough reverting to be worth mentioning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Heimstern Läufer: Leaving aside the details of this particular case, the implication of your view is that any repeated reversions of content, even spaced out over time, are more egregious than including poor content in the encyclopedia. . . . I've recently been involved in a more significant problem elsewhere. Another editor (not involved here) reverted my contributions to two articles. (This involved the other editor removing/changing references to the main reliable source.) I completely abandoned my work on those articles (and on related articles). Judging by the approach here, I must have done the right thing. Social harmony is the most important thing, right? If I had insisted on article accuracy and slowly and judiciously reverted bad content, I would have been reported here and got the usual 'you are equally to blame' treatment, just like Eusebeus. Hmm. --Kleinzach 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Please stop twisting my words. I did not say they were equally to blame. I said both were edit warring. I'm quite willing to say that the one doing the most reverting, which is to say Lost Josephine Minor, is more to blame, but that doesn't mean the other side was guiltless. As for content issues, I am required to maintain neutrality or else I can't be considered an uninvolved editor, so I won't comment on them. Yes, absolutely, content is most important, social harmony is a distant second. If you don't think I know that, ask Future Perfect at Sunrise or Horologium how I railed at ArbCom over their misprioritizing social harmony in ARBMAC2. And I haven't blocked anyone, just given a warning that future activity is likely to result in blocks, though I don't really plan to dish any out. Taking away rollback permissions, that I might do. There's really no excuse for using rollback on non-vandal edits. That's all. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Heimstern Läufer: Leaving aside the details of this particular case, the implication of your view is that any repeated reversions of content, even spaced out over time, are more egregious than including poor content in the encyclopedia. . . . I've recently been involved in a more significant problem elsewhere. Another editor (not involved here) reverted my contributions to two articles. (This involved the other editor removing/changing references to the main reliable source.) I completely abandoned my work on those articles (and on related articles). Judging by the approach here, I must have done the right thing. Social harmony is the most important thing, right? If I had insisted on article accuracy and slowly and judiciously reverted bad content, I would have been reported here and got the usual 'you are equally to blame' treatment, just like Eusebeus. Hmm. --Kleinzach 00:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Regardless, Eusebeus had been doing way too much reverting for me to ignore in my closing comments. I mention those two not an exclusive list but as the ones doing enough reverting to be worth mentioning. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:03, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Splinterr reported by User:Gruen (Result: Article semi-protected)
Page: Jean-François Larios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Splinterr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Comments: User is apparently determined to remove the part of the article which refers to Larios being excluded from the 1982 Football World Cup squad. He has removed sourced content multiple times since February 8th and replacing it with some French content, using multiple IPs besides the username Splinterr. Myself and others kept reverting his edits for a while and warned him in the edit summaries not to remove sourced content from the page but he seems to be very enduring. Might need administration intervention.
- Due to multiple IP disruption, the article is Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Reisio reported by User:Ronz (Result: blocked 55h)
Page: Little Dragon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Reisio (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- 1st revert: 06:59, 26 January 2011
- 2nd revert: 19:04, 27 January 2011
- 3rd revert: 00:54, 28 January 2011
- 4th revert: 21:41, 28 January 2011
- Revert 5: 14:29, 29 January 2011
- Revert 6: 20:49, 29 January 2011
- Revert 7: 04:11, 30 January 2011
- Revert 8: 18:57, 30 January 2011
- Revert 9: 23:28, 31 January 2011
- Revert 10: 20:30, 1 February 2011
- Revert 11: 20:49, 1 February 2011
- Revert 12: 19:38, 2 February 2011
- Revert 13: 20:33, 3 February 2011
- Revert 14: 03:18, 5 February 2011
- Revert 15: 23:05, 5 February 2011
- Revert 16: 15:23, 6 February 2011
- Revert 17: 06:45, 7 February 2011
- Revert 18: 10:57, 7 February 2011
- Revert 19: 02:37, 8 February 2011
- Revert 20: 01:54, 9 February 2011
- Revert 21: 10:47, 11 February 2011
- Revert 22: 05:41, 14 February 2011
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:28, 13 February 2011
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 23:31, 13 February 2011 23:32, 13 February 2011 at External Links Noticeboard
Comments:
Soetermans (talk · contribs) is the primary editor involved in the edit-warring against Reisio. He was warned Feb 10th for edit-warring and WP:POINT violations, and had stopped edit-warring two days earlier. --Ronz (talk) 17:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
I also left Snoop God (talk · contribs) a note [10] on his portion of the edit-warring. He had stopped 14:49, 29 January 2011. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reisio is currently failing to win friends and influence people by claiming that WP:ELBURDEN is "ridiculous", that the (apparently) uniform opposition to the blogspot link are only due to editors "applying guidelines blindly", that the guideline is "self-contradictory", and that he is obliged to ignore the consensus because he personally does not believe any of the (six?) editors opposing it have put forward a good enough reason to justify its removal.
- This situation concerns me. ELN commonly sees problems—indeed, its whole purpose is to deal with problems—but we rarely see such poorly disguised contempt for other editors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
User:MFIreland reported by User:Lloydelliot10 (Result: Article protected)
Page: British Army (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MFIreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
[15]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
[17]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:British Army#User:MFIreland keeps adding bogus "Citation Needed" tags to recruitment
and
Comments:
- Because nearly everyone in the recent page history seems to have violated 3RR, the article is Fully protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
User:76.66.133.76 reported by McGeddon (talk) (Result: Stale)
Page: Radiohead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.66.133.76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 14:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 06:10, 10 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 412921994 by 72.37.128.50 (talk)")
- 05:22, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 412925515 by 72.37.128.50 (talk)")
- 13:50, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 413275293 by 137.222.216.63 (talk)")
- 14:29, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 413061062 by 76.66.133.76 (talk)")
- 14:31, 11 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 413275293 by 137.222.216.63 (talk)")
- 06:43, 12 February 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning: here
—McGeddon (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
- If they come back without sources, please re-open this report. The IP appears to have been stable for the last few days, but it is probably dynamic and may change without notice. It may be worth considering requesting semi-protection. - 2/0 (cont.) 09:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reopened; he's now deleting sourced information about the new album (!) in order to restore his little theory about something he saw on the website last week. He's reverted it twice more since. --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Stale Closing it again; given that other editors were reverting him (this is about an album that's out today, and he was blanking that information to make his own point), I ended up just warning him up to level four and going through other vandalism channels. --McGeddon (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Reopened; he's now deleting sourced information about the new album (!) in order to restore his little theory about something he saw on the website last week. He's reverted it twice more since. --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
User:JackhammerSwirl reported by User:Jiujitsuguy (Result: Blocked)
Page: Gaza War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JackhammerSwirl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
- Comment: The Gaza War is currently under a 1r restriction
User warned [22]
User:208.233.32.44, User:65.175.251.7 and User:Gabrielkat reported by User:McDoobAU93 (Result: protected 10 days)
Page: Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 208.233.32.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), 65.175.251.7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Gabrielkat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: Last known good version, before this started ...
208.233.32.44 reverting ...
65.175.251.7 reverting ...
Gabrielkat reverting ...
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for 208.233.32.44, for 65.175.251.7 and for Gabrielkat
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Starts here, but then there's this and then this and this and finally this. Not much talking apparently.
Comments:
Most likely a battle between two users, with one apparently using two IPs (although I don't believe this is intended as sockpuppetry and may simply be the same person editing from two different locations). Edits appear to be focused on a single date, a release date for a particular movie. These two/three editors have been just about the only source of activity in this article recently, and it's getting ugly. I haven't made any changes simply because I'm not sure who's right and who's wrong, but disruptive is disruptive, and this has got to stop. I'm going to request page protection as well until this gets resolved. --McDoobAU93 18:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Page protected for a period of 10 days Honestly I would have just blocked both of them, but neither editor has reverted since being warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
User:WikiManOne reported by User:Haymaker (Result: 48 hours)
Page: Planned Parenthood (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: WikiManOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [30]
- 1st revert: [31] straight revert at 21:12
- 2nd revert: [32] straight revert at 10:32
- 3rd revert: [33] straight revert at 11:37
- 4th revert: [34] at 13:25 is a revert of this edit 25 minutes earlier
- 5th revert: [35] straight revert at 14:30
- 6th revert: [36] was a straight revert at 19:09, a self revert was made at 19:11 but then WMO went ahead a made the exact same edit with a few of the words rearranged 45 minutes later at 19:57
WMO has been warned about edit warring many times by many editors over the last few days [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]
These edits have been talked over on the talk page
Comments:
This is 6 reverts inside 23 hours. It is also worth noting that the user was reported for edit warring on the page Lila Rose 4 days ago. He was let off with a stern warning after declaring his retirement from that page. He has since resumed making reverts on that page.
- This is amusing coming from someone who has been blocked for edit warring four times previously, complaining that I undid their edits. The first revert was a revert of actions disruptive to wikipedia, as was the fifth revert. As the notice on the talk page states "Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before." Those were edits made in an area that had substantial discussion over the course of weeks. I was justified in reverting their edits that went against clearly established consensus and therefore disruptive.
- The fourth "revert" is not a revert at all, it reworded the whole thing and was not reverting to a previous version.
- The sixth revert was a revert that I promtply self reverted, even though not counting reverting disruptive actions, that would have been my third revert against 3RR. As such, even if it wasn't self-reverted, it would have not been a fourth revert. Furthermore, it was not the same edit, I went back to the source and addressed the concerns made.
- Is this the fourth or fifth report you've brought against me Haymaker? Last I checked, only one was successful and that one resulted in a block for you as well. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 20:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Here's a thought: how about both of you stop it? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- I also want to add, the two actual reverts I did not discuss above, were reverting unilateral changes to the lead which were, in fact, violations of this notice on the talk page: "Please discuss substantial changes here before making them, supplying full citations when adding information, and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information." The changes were not discussed before being made and a different editor previously removed the editor's attempt to add this information to the lead. Instead of beginning a discussion on its inclusion on the talk page, the user chose to repeatedly insert it, leaving those involved with little choice but to revert it. I think my actions were all completely justifiable, and I'm tired of Haymaker making frivolous reports. WMO Please leave me a wb if you reply 20:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- - Never mind both of them stop it - the reported user is continuing along the same lines and if he is again warring he has had plenty of warning and a three day restriction is required, and of course if the reporter is also in violation then the same goes for them - there is a lot of disruption presently in this topic area and violations require edit restrictions of some kind - a topic ban or a WP:1RR one revert restriction will also help reduce the disruption.. Off2riorob (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours - the 3RR does have exclusions, they are listed here. There was no vandalism here, just a difference in opinion (any interested parties can read up on the definition at WP:VAND#NOT, and the essay I personally wrote: WP:HITLER). Haymaker's changes were generally not reversions, they were changes to the existing text. Neither were WikiManOne's changes in the spirit of WP:BRD, as Haymaker's changes were in fact an alteration of the text as WikiManOne wrote it (not a reversion). This does not excuse edit warring on anyone's behalf, and WikiManOne is still welcome to edit this article in the future as a valuable editor. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Niallo301 reported by User:Erikeltic (Result: blocked 1 month)
Page: Slieve League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Croaghaun (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niallo301 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- There have been enough 3RRs on this problem. I am reporting it as an edit war.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [42] [43]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Yes. The editor's talk page is full of warnings, blocks, etc. over his continued edit warring and refusal to provide sources. [44]
Comments: This editor has repeatedly vandalised Slieve League with non-cited materials, Youtube links, and misc other statements. The editor has now moved over into Croaghaun and is doing the same thing there. Already the editor has been blocked for this behavior and yet he/she continues to do it. I have encouraged the editor to learn Wikipedia rules and I have even offered to help put some reliable sources together for the article. Thus far the editor has ignored all attempts at communication and yet he continues to edit the article indiscriminately.
- Blocked – for a period of 1 month Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
User:McGlockin reported by User:Tentontunic (Result: 24 hr block)
Page: Disinformation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: McGlockin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [50]
Comments:Although the user has only three reverts he has been reinserting uncited content, and making personal attacks in calling me a vandal. He is now on four reverts.
He has also made personal attacks on my talk page [51] In again calling me a vandal and accusations of an agenda. Tentontunic (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- He has attacked me as well. User seems to have a battleground mentality, a little mentoring might help rather than a block. Soxwon (talk) 21:53, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked Blocked 24 hours for edit-warring and characterizing disagreement as vandalism. Acroterion (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Moni3 reported by User:Zarcadia (Result: Protected)
Please continue this discussion at Talk:Everglades National Park#Linking "U.S. state" or another appropriate venue. - 2/0 (cont.) 04:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
|
---|
I've had a perfectly valid edit reverted 3 times as well as 2 messages sent to my talk page. I contest my edits were valid and had no valid reasons for reversion. The history can be seen here [[52]] Zarcadia (talk) 23:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC) Well, hey. I was going to report Zarcadia for doing something very stupid in an FA. I was going to format my report properly too, but let's see where this goes. --Moni3 (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
|
User:BillyGambela reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 24 h)
Page: African American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) User being reported: BillyGambela (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Time reported: 06:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC) Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 05:16, 16 February 2011 (edit summary: "")
- 05:32, 16 February 2011 (edit summary: "")
- 05:44, 16 February 2011 (edit summary: "")
- 06:02, 16 February 2011 (edit summary: "")
- Diff of warning: here —Dougweller (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Blocked - 2/0 (cont.) 06:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Ramanujamuni and User:Hari7478 reported by User:Asav (Result: Protected)
Page: Iyengar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:
- Ramanujamuni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and
- Hari7478 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Ramanujamuni#Edit war and User talk:Hari7478#Edit war
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Iyengar#OTRS notice: Edit war
Comments:
This is a somewhat unusual situation, as I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject at hand, i.e. Iyengar, nor have I participated in any discussion, except the Edit war warning on the talk page.Also, I'm literally not sure whether this should have been filed on the Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts page.
As an OTRS volunteers, I responded to a vandalism complaint regarding the article, and it turned out there had already been an edit war going on for some time. As I am eminently unqualified to make any judgments on the merits of the cases made by the contestants, I simply posted a message on the talk page (op. cit.), and I reverted an anonymous edit that did nothing more than delete a source. My second edit reverted a polemic statement inserted into the article proper. The latter edit was made after a message left on my talk page by User:Hari7478: User talk:Asav#Please help me out - In the Iyengar wiki page. Shortly thereafter, User:Ramanujamuni left an unsigned reply on the same page.
As far as I can see, the edit war has been going on for quite a while, first between an anonymous user and User:Hari7478, then mainly between User:Hari7478 and User:Ramanujamuni (which seems to be a one trick pony, as it has only been used to edit the Iyengar article) and to a certain extent User:Padmavasantha. It seems User:Hari7478, too, is mainly concerned with Hindu casts.
Furthermore, it is my understanding that some of the dispute concerns (a) certain term(s) that one part finds derogatory and that there seems to be a fair amount of ethnic discord involved, e.g. one of the edit comments reads "(...) provide factual data which has been suppressed and provided with the racial bias".
I would add the the majority of disagreements are completely incomprehensible to me, such as "factual data which proves the Thenkalai is the more prevelant sampradhya" and "Padmavasantha-unneccessarily swapping contents by moving thenkalai section ahead of vadakalai."
What does seem clear to me, is that all users blatantly disregard the principle Verifiability, not truth by removing each others' sources. For the record, I have obviously never claimed to have any administrative privileges on Wikipedia, nor given the impression that my two edits were made in any other capacity than an ordinary editor.
In short, I believe it's better that someone with content dispute/edit war experience handles this, as it certainly doesn't belong on my talk page. This is way outside the OTRS domain, and I have no practical suggestions or requests as how to resolve the matter. Asav (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This is me user:hari7478 to justify my point.
My user:id has also been mentioned in this report by user:Asav. I would like to justify my doing, by providing valid points.
1. [57].This was the original version of the Iyengar article before user:Padmavasantha and user:Ramanujamuni started making changes. The two users "user:Padmavasantha and user:Ramanujamuni" had been giving their own statements and POVs without any web source, since then. The dispute has arised mainly in this section of the page [58] This was the first vandalising change made by user:Padmavasantha - Diff [59]
2. Since then i had to revert their edits repeatedly. But all i did was only reverting vandalising edits. Here are my edits [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]. All these edits of mine had only re-established the original article content, as the article was, before the edit warring started. All the references I had provided, are from authentic "online books authored by renowned authors".
3. These are the vandalising edits of user:Ramanujamuni - [65], [66], [67], [68], [69]. In all these edits user:Ramanujamuni had repeatedly deleted "reference source materials" and tried to establish his own statements and POVs, without providing valid references.
4. user:Ramanujamuni had also been falsely accusing the integrity of the reference materials. user:ramanujamuni had accused me of misinterpreting references. But I never misinterpreted any reference content. All i did was only copy pasting of reference contents into wikipedia, which is obvious from all my edits, that i've provided in Point no.2.
5. I had adequately discussed justifying my point in user talk:Ramanujamuni talk page. But the user paid no heed to it. user:ramanujamuni rejects the authority of "reference sources" i had provided, and had been giving his own POVs repeatedly in the Iyengar page, by "removing references". I had also provided additional references for cross-checking.
6. user:ramanujamuni had also ,modified and tampered with my warning message on his talk page. See here [70].
7. I conclude saying that, all i did was re-establishment of the original article content before the edit war had started. Spare me, and punish the guilty please. Hari7478 (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Result: Article fully protected two weeks. Please follow the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if you are deadlocked. Both of you have commented on talk pages, but what you have said is very hard to understand. You could try a brief posting at Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics and see if anyone can give advice about the article issues. EdJohnston (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Muboshgu reported by User:Wayiran (Result: normal discussion and editing have resumed)
Page: 2011 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muboshgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [71]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [76]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [77]
Comments: He keeps re-introducing "2011 Arab Protests" into 2011 Iranian Protests, eventhough he's been told numerous times that Iran is not an Arab country. He made 4 reverts in less than 24 hours.
User:Jflaiz reported by User:Muhandes (Result: )
Page: Tanglewood National Golf Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jflaiz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [78]
- 1st revert: [79]
- 2nd revert: [80]
- 3rd revert: [81]
- 4th revert: [82]
- At this point the user was reported and blocked, but as soon as the block was removed
- 5th revert: [83]
- 6th revert, as IP: [84]
- 7th revert: [85]
- 8th revert: [86]
- 9th revert, as IP: [87]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [88]
- Second warning after returning from block [89]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [90]
Comments:
As shown above, a repeat offense. Muhandes (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Blake1960 reported by User:Ebikeguy (Result: )
Page: Miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Blake1960 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [91]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [96]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [97]
Comments:
This is Blake1960's second 3RR violation in the last two weeks. Multiple editors have asked him, politely and repeatedly, to stop posting OR and to limit his edits to content related to the article, but he has summarily refused to do so, frequently resorting to personal attacks in the process.
User:Imacericg reported by guanxi (Result: )
Page: Winged football helmet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Imacericg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 74.235.160.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 174.96.172.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I'm pretty sure these are the same person. The comments in the reverts (see below) sound like they are coming from the same editor.
Previous version reverted to: [98]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link] - see comments
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff] - see comments
Comments:
A simple case: Imacericg has a history of inappropriately linking to spartanjerseys.com despite warnings (see their talk page and contributions). In this case, Imacericg is citing it and I'm pretty sure it's not an RS. I've asked them three times to use RS or remove the material, including providing a link to WP:RS ([102], [103], [104]), but they don't seem very interested in learning the policy.
They also claim that spartanjerseys.com is acceptable because it cites other sources; I suggested Imacericg cite the sources directly if they are RS (but they aren't; spartanjersey's source for this material is: Constantine S. Demos and Steven S. Demos, M.D., The Tradition Continues: Spartan Football (Muskegon: Michigan State University Football Players Association, 2008)). I'm also accused of vandalism for removing the material, and of being a University of Michigan fan (I can't find the WP policy on that).
I haven't discussed it their talk page or on the article's talk page, but I'm really hoping to avoid wasting more time on it. They've ignored previous attempts by others to inform them and there is not more to discuss than what's in the edit comments; if they want to follow WP:RS, then they would have stopped using spartanjerseys.com by now. I can do it if you think it will help somehow ...
Unless someone else edits the page in the interim, I believe the proper version is: [105]
guanxi (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
User:Muboshgu reported by User:Wayiran (Result: )
Page: 2011 Iranian protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Muboshgu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [106]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [112]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [113]
Comments: I reported him earllier, and I was told if he resumes edit-warring, I should report this. He has done just that, he is reverting again.