KrakatoaKatie (talk | contribs) →User:Serienfan2010 reported by User:Aoi (Result: ): reported user blocked 2 months, IP blocked one month for block evasion plus edit warring |
No edit summary |
||
Line 579: | Line 579: | ||
*{{AN3|b}} Serienfan2010 was warring at this article and at [[Zendaya Coleman]]. Apparently a one month block didn't suffice to get the 'no edit warring' message, so let's see if two months works. The IP was blocked for one month (static IP) for confirmed block evasion and edit warring. '''[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|<font face="papyrus"><font color="FireBrick">K</font><font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa</font></font>]][[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|<font face="papyrus"><font color="FireBrick">K</font><font color="2F4F4F">atie</font></font>]]''' 22:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
*{{AN3|b}} Serienfan2010 was warring at this article and at [[Zendaya Coleman]]. Apparently a one month block didn't suffice to get the 'no edit warring' message, so let's see if two months works. The IP was blocked for one month (static IP) for confirmed block evasion and edit warring. '''[[:User:KrakatoaKatie|<font face="papyrus"><font color="FireBrick">K</font><font color="2F4F4F">rakatoa</font></font>]][[User talk:KrakatoaKatie|<font face="papyrus"><font color="FireBrick">K</font><font color="2F4F4F">atie</font></font>]]''' 22:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
== [[User:Deliciousgrapefruit]] reported by [[User:Cptnono]] (BLP violation) (Result: ) == |
|||
'''Page:''' {{pagelinks|Glenn Beck}} <br /> |
|||
'''User being reported:''' {{userlinks|Deliciousgrapefruit}} |
|||
<!-- 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=Glenn_Beck&action=historysubmit&diff=405173131&oldid=405089099] |
|||
<!-- 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=Glenn_Beck&action=historysubmit&diff=405237728&oldid=405236774] |
|||
* 2nd revert: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Glenn_Beck&action=historysubmit&diff=405240410&oldid=405238280] |
|||
<!-- 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 --> |
|||
The user has not crossed 3/rr but I have little doubt that he would if we kept on reverting due to the rapid reverting. I does not need to be 3/rr to be edit warring anyways. I am bringing this up now since it is a BLP. There has been lengthy discussion nd there is no consensus for the edit. More than one user disagrees with its inclusion and another agreed that it could be included but there was further discussion on how to handle the edit. The user can continue to seek consensus through more discussion or even an RFC but I am seeking a short block of the editor to limit disruption and removal of the contentious edit unti consensus on how to handle the material is achieved.[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- 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:Deliciousgrapefruit&action=historysubmit&diff=405238130&oldid=404867888] |
|||
<!-- 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: [[Talk:Glenn Beck#Believes 10% of Muslims are Terrorists]]/[[Talk:Glenn Beck#Beck's view on Muslims]] |
|||
<u>Comments:</u> <br /> |
|||
<!-- OPTIONAL: Add any other comments and sign your name using ~~~~ --> |
Revision as of 00:31, 1 January 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:Olyus reported by User:NorthernCounties (Result: Page protected)
Page: Tampere-Pirkkala Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Olyus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [1]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [6]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [7]
Comments:
This editor is not helping other editors being constructive. And fails to listen to any argument that contests him. He argues a route is not seasonal and removes the destination completely from the page. When the route is bookable. Not helpful at all. I appreciate your time looking into this matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NorthernCounties (talk • contribs) 11:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
- Page protected for a period of 3 weeks Apologies for taking so long to get to the report. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks Magog, and don't be silly, it's xmas! --NorthernCounties (talk) 13:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Pkmishra264 reported by Dmol (talk) (Result: stale)
Page: Bird Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pkmishra264 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 10:19, 21 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 07:38, 22 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 06:07, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 06:27, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 09:15, 27 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [8]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [9]
Comments:User has a conflict of interest and is adding reams of promotional material to the article. After trying to trim article to an acceptable size and tone, user has repeatedly added cruft again. Article is now listed on AFD as spam. User has stated on the AFD page that they will "remove all kinds of promotional messages", however the reverts are almost identical. Reason for my edits (and those of user EEng who is also trying to fix article) have all stated the reason for our edits is the removal of spam and uncited promotional info.
--Dmol (talk) 21:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
- Stale Page is deleted anyway. Apologies for long waiting period. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Luph25 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: 72 hrs )
Page: Mercedes-Benz C-Class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luph25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 06:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 04:04, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "")
- 04:20, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404760992 by CZmarlin (talk)")
- 04:55, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404764432 by Falcadore (talk)")
- 05:17, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404767167 by CZmarlin (talk)")
- 05:18, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Motorsport */")
- Diff of warning: here
—CZmarlin (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Amazing! Yet another revert! Current revision as of 06:13, December 29, 2010. CZmarlin (talk) 06:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 72 hours for 3RR and personal attacks on other editors. KrakatoaKatie 07:44, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Luph25 reported by CZmarlin (talk) (Result: already blocked )
Page: Audi A4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Luph25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 06:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC # 04:04, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* R14 (2008) */")
- 04:20, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404760465 by CZmarlin (talk)")
- 04:38, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Technical specifications */")
- 04:45, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Technical specifications */")
- 04:50, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404764812 by Falcadore (talk)")
- 04:51, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Technical specifications */")
- 04:53, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* Technical specifications */")
- 05:17, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404767323 by CZmarlin (talk)")
- 05:18, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* R14 (2008) */")
- 06:07, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 404773061 by Falcadore (talk)")
- Diff of warning: here
- This is the second article this user does not seem to be able to conform to the resolution of the discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Large crufty additions to roadcar articles.
—CZmarlin (talk) 06:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Here is yet another mass replacement ... with the addition of "no revert" in the article's text: Current revision as of 06:14, December 29, 2010. CZmarlin (talk) 06:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Already blocked You guys don't have to tolerate that level of personal attacks. I don't remember who reported him to AIV, but that's the place to go for the stuff he was pulling tonight. KrakatoaKatie 07:48, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
User:AndeanThunder reported by User:Pfainuk (Result: Blocked for 55h)
Page: Talk:Falkland Islands (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AndeanThunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [10]
Note that one of the reverts is an IP. I believe this IP to be AndeanThunder, per this edit and the fact that they were reverting to the same thing at the same time.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [16]
Comments:
Note that the text that AndeanThunder is reverting to includes multiple personal attacks, and calls upon editors to disrupt the article. Note also that talk page was protected earlier this month because of the sockpuppetry involved - this is the text that the sockpuppets wanted to include. Pfainuk talk 10:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked for 55 hours. Third edit-warring block. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:28, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
User:MFIreland reported by Dingo (talk) (Result: No Violation)
Page: Category:7.92 mm firearms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Gewehr 98 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and other members of the Category, 7.92x33mm Kurz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MFIreland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [17]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on User talk page: [18], resolution attempt was reverted without any comment.
Comments:
In Talk:8x57_IS#German_military_designation.3F and before in the Request to Move, I discovered that there seem to be NO references in German literature about the 8mil-calibres as 7.92mm. No sources could be cited otherwise until now. The calibre designation is either 8mm (civil) or 7.9mm (Wehrmacht, Reichswehr and users before). Sources have been cited that it's either "cartridge 7.9mm" or "8x57 IS".
Therefore, after the movement of 8x57 IS, I began to correct other articles in category:7.92 mm firearms, as well as the category itself. User:MFIreland began reverting. With references on above talk, I reverted again (2nd revert) and wrote to User:MFIreland. He reverted again (3rd revert), and reverted without comment my comments on his talk page. So, I don't think this is going to be resolved communicatively. --Dingo (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- I have not made more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. User:Dingo added a 3RR warning notice onto my talk page despite this. I asked user:Dingo which article he claim's I made the 3RR violation and he replied saying Category:7.92 mm firearms, Category:7.92x33mm Kurz and article Gewehr 98. One of the category's which user:Dingo claim's I made 3RR does not even exist. I have never made an edit on the other category which he claimed and the article Gewehr 98 I have only ever made 2 edits. Any edits I reverted made by user:Dingo was because they where unsourced and/or original research.--MFIreland • Talk 20:35, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- This is not true. MFIreland made reverts in members of Category:7.92 mm firearms as well as in the article 7.92x33mm_Kurz. Extensive sources backing my edits is provided in Talk:8x57_IS#Contemporary_sources_for_the_8mm_designations. --Dingo (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
No violation Dingo, please gain consensus or cite sources before adding new material. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:41, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, there is no consensus to be gained because MFIreland seems to be totally uninterested in consensus. In Talk:8x57_IS#7.92mm_dispute, a discussion was begun, but MFIreland is not partaking. Sources backing my edits are compiled in Talk:8x57_IS#Contemporary_sources_for_the_8mm_designations. Instead, MFIreland vandalises my talk page by giving fake templates, while not accepting an arbitration. Please help by naming an arbitrator. --Dingo (talk) 23:31, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Dingo reported by User:MFIreland (Result: No violation 12 hours; reporter blocked 3 hours)
Page: Enfauser (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dingo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [19]
- 1st revert: 00:40, 29 December 2010
- 2nd revert: 01:30, 29 December 2010
- 3rd revert: 01:45, 29 December 2010
- 4th revert: 23:12, 29 December 2010
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [20]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [21]
Comments:
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MFIreland (talk • contribs) 23:45, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
- Discussion about the matter is not on Talk:Enfauser, but on Talk:8x57_IS#7.92mm_dispute. In Talk:8x57_IS#Contemporary_sources_for_the_8mm_designations, it could be determined that the edit was not "original research", but there were NO contemporary and WP:PRIMARY sources to be found for MFIreland's allegations. The C.I.P.-drawing is at the moment offline, but the SAAMI drawing at [22] clearly supports the edits, too. On User talk page: [23], it was tried to gain consensus, but resolution attempt was reverted without any comment. Furthermore, MFIreland and others began a veritable orgy with Template:cn on 8x57 IS that's now a textbook example of Wikipedia:You_don't_need_to_cite_that_the_sky_is_blue#Over-tagging. If MFIreland was ever interested in constructive resolution, he would partake in Talk:8x57 IS and not make an alibi statement on Talk:Enfauser. --Dingo (talk) 00:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
No violation First "reversion" was in fact not a reversion. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Both editors blocked On second thought, there has been more edit warring since the last report was declined, and the attempts to discuss on the talk page are mimimal. Dingo blocked for longer for ignoring the WP:BRD cycle and the advice of admin immediately above; MFIreland blocked because his last edit was not technically a revert in content, but the context ensured this was another edit to cast doubt on the information, and because his attempt to talk was flagrantly unconstructive [24]. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- For the record: The WP:BRD cycle was more than satisfied, as well as the "advice" above; the discussion is on Talk:8x57 IS. Pity for the hours I invested in Talk:8x57_IS#Contemporary_sources_for_the_8mm_designations, which turned out to be just troll-feeding. I have requested to be blocked infinitely; MFIreland has stolen me >8 hours of my lifetime and I surely never want to have that again. --Dingo (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.197.182.88 (talk)
User:Kary247 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: warned)
Page: Rare groove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kary247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Time reported: 16:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
- 23:58, 29 December 2010 (edit summary: "added link to groove")
- 00:29, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "I don't like the sources language choice 'exotic' it seems to imply 'alien' and associates this idea with rare groove which I feel is not politically correct")
- 10:06, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "removed 'once-exotic music' ref - see discussion page")
- 10:07, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "removed 'once-exotic music' ref - see discussion page")
- 10:19, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "inserted link to Groove")
- 15:48, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "/* History and development */")
- 16:03, 30 December 2010 (edit summary: "restoring an internal link")
- Diff of warning: here
You may need to look at the whole picture, as the reverts are not all the same. Basically, this editor is repeatedly undoing in whole or in part any edits by myself and Machine Elf 1735. Examples include repeatedly re-inserting links to Groove and/or Groove (music) and/or eclectic after they have been removed. Also reverting headings to non-MoS compliant capitalization, undoing paragraph splits, undoing removal of overlinking, repeated removal of a source that she doesn't like, etc.
—Yworo (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Warned SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:56, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Seokmin Sean Lee reported by User:Crusio (Result: blatant copyvio, reverted, user warned )
Page: The Millennium Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Seokmin Sean Lee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This is not technically-speaking an edit war (yet). however, an anonymous IP and now User:Seokmin Sean Lee keep adding material to this article that looks to me to be inappropriate. Not only does the whole "Timeline of The Millennium Project" look like OR, but the sections under "Current Research" are copied verbatim from the homepage of this project (external links for verification of this are conveniently placed directly beneath the copied text. There is no discussion of this matter on any talk page. the reason for this is that I was emailed, first by Jerome C. Glenn (who is the head of this project), then by Seokmin Lee, who claims to be an "intern" working for the project. I should note that they did not use the "wikimail" link on my talk page, but apparently found an email address through Google (I edit under my real name). Although I have kindly asked them not to handle this by email but post their comments on the appropriate talk pages, this has not been done. In the email I explained some of the problems (this initially only concerned the timeline) and also alerted Seokmin Lee to WP:COI. I don't want to start an edit war about this (and this article is very peripheral to my interests anyway) and am not really sure how to handle this. If this is not the right forum to ask for assistance with this issue, I apologize, in that case please point me to the correct place to go. Thanks. --Crusio (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
- Warned He was adding a blatant copyvio. If he persists after being warned, report him to WP:AIV. KrakatoaKatie 03:11, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Kary247 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result: see above, user warned)
Page: Rare groove (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kary247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: 17:10 on 29-Dec
- 1st revert: 00:08 30-Dec
- 2nd revert: 00:49 30-Dec
- 3rd revert: 15:48 30-Dec
- 4th revert: 15:48 30-Dec
- 5th revert: 16:03 30-Dec
- rv 3.5 or sock? Kary247 IP sock, 12:24 30-Dec (Special:Contributions/94.175.145.18)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: uw-3rr3 from Machine Elf 11:00 30-Dec and uw-3rr from Yworo 15:53 30-Dec
Also, uw-delete4 for 01:19 29-Dec and even some logical advice 16:42 30-Dec.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [25]
Comments: It might make sense to look at my reverts: (00:20 30-Dec and 01:13 30-Dec).
—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:07, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- It took me awhile to put this together I guess... Yworo posted after I did the talk page. Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Never mind, for all the good the last block did. I guess I have to post something on COIN.—Machine Elf 1735 (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Warned by Sarek. Hasn't edited the article since that I can tell. But you should re-report or let one of us know if another revert occurs. KrakatoaKatie 03:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:BT35 reported by User:Professor marginalia (Result: 48 hours )
Page:Talk:Race (classification of humans) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BT35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [26]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [31]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [32]
Comments:
Talk pages in articles related to Race have lately attracted "new" editors (many proven to be socks) coming to debate "the truth" about race and "conspiracies" to silence it. To reduce the disruption we've been closing the curtains on the talk page rants and tantrums. This user was made aware but chooses to ignore it.[33] Professor marginalia (talk) 18:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I have a feeling this is not a new editor, so 48 hours is appropriate for six or seven reverts after being asked several times to stop. KrakatoaKatie 04:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:71.164.114.50 reported by User:Nahome (Result: Semiprotected)
Page: Bambu rolling papers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported : 71.164.114.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [34]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
This IP supposedly traces back to the company from what a different IP warrior posted. It seems to be the same user as ArnaudMS, trying very hard to put up promotional text and removing referenced items that are contrary to his Bambu brand. Please PP the page for 30 days, it was already protected for 7 but that didn't stop them. As soon as the PP expired they were all back at it again. Nahome (talk) 04:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC) The user is still at it, I tried to remove all of the disputed unreferenced text but they really want promo stuff up there :( Nahome (talk) 05:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Result: Semiprotected two months. Both an IP and a registered editor seem to be adding unverifiable material. Promotional editing has been going on for a long time. If Nahome has the patience, I suggest they might open a report at the WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. This will help admins determine whether further blocks can be justified. It also would give the editors who may have a COI a chance to explain their thinking. EdJohnston (talk) 05:52, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
editwarring on Money creation
User:Javalizard reported by User:Bobrayner (Result: already blocked 31 hours )
Page: Money creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Javalizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: [39]
- 2nd revert: [40]
- 3rd revert: [41]
- 4th revert: [42]
- 5th revert: [43]
- 6th revert: [44]
- 7th revert: [45]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [46] [47] and finally [48].
Various attempts at resolving problem on talkpage (it's a long page). The latest section is this, no response yet.
Comments:
Javalizard has made previous attempts to insert related content, which got removed by various editors, but not more than once per day - for instance this and this and this.
Also some worrisome edits over at Money multiplier but that hasn't hit 3rr yet.
bobrayner (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Javalizard reported by User:Lawrencekhoo (Result: 31 hours)
Page: Money creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Javalizard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [49]
- 1st revert: [50]
- 2nd revert: [51]
- 3rd revert: [52]
- 4th revert: [53]
- 5th revert: [54]
- 6th revert: [55]
- 7th revert: [56]
(Because of the large number of reverts, I may have missed some from the history.)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning
User was warned several times in edit summaries about OR and edit warring. E.g.:[57]
and also warned on the article talk page:[58]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [59]
Discussion about original research and request to stop edit warring was also carried out between Javalizard and myself on my talk page:[60]
Comments:
Javalizard seems unable to recognize that he is introducing original research and is edit warring to do so. He continues to argue the TRUTH of his edits and to revert to his preferred version.
This complaint duplicates the one on top. I started filing it before the above complaint appeared.
--LK (talk) 06:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Plot Spoiler reported by User:Asifkhanj (Result: No vio)
Page: Asghar Bukhari (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Plot Spoiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
- 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asghar_Bukhari&diff=prev&oldid=405100925
- 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asghar_Bukhari&diff=prev&oldid=404315958
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Asghar_Bukhari (Updates/Reversion section)
Comments:
This will likely be an edit warring by Plot Spoiler. On other pages people have discussed specific areas of concern and we agreed to changes, but Plot Spoiler keeps on doing whole sale reverts and keeps on mentionin POV without specifying what areas of the article are creating concern as I believe the article did not have a neutral POV, and I organised and referenced and added content to ensure the article does not digress and discusses the controversy better. Plot Spoiler started off by reverting without discussion and keeps on doing that. I suspect this will remain the case. He might be forcing a revert warring violation which can result in my account being banned. Asifkhanj (talk) 09:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:FrankieRyan1936 reported by User:RolandR (Result: Already blocked)
Page: Vladimir Lenin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FrankieRyan1936 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [61]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [66]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff]
Comments:
Clear sockpuppet of banned user Ledenierhomme (talk · · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). Also edit-warring on my own talk page: [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74] This editor is also returning to ongoing vandalism of Expédition d'Irlande, previously protected as a result of his vandalism; and is repeatedly vandalising my talk page. RolandR (talk) 13:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Already blocked Indef'd by NawlinwikiHJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Amraamny reported by User:Zabanio (Result: No vio)
- Page: Chengdu J-20 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- User being reported: Amraamny (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I warned the editor on their user talk] page, which they reverted. I discussed the matter further on talk page. Please note I believe this editor is involved in Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. He has just started a brand new Wikipedia account and he is quoting Wikipedia policy, that a newcomer should not know.
User:Amraamny started the article Chengdu J-20, it was written poorly with no citations and another editor placed a "no citations +tag" on the article. I rewrote the article using some of the information in the original article and I place proper citations in the article. User:Amraamny essentially keeps reverting the article back to its original state, removing the majority of what I and others have written including the citations.
Thank you Zabanio (talk) 10:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Hello, thank you for looking into the matter. All four reverts are within 24 hours:
- Revert 1 = Revision as of 21:54, 30 December 2010
- Revert 2 = Revision as of 21:58, 30 December 2010
- Revert 3 = Revision as of 22:40, 30 December 2010
- Revert 4 = Revision as of 01:47, 31 December 2010
- These 4 reverts happened within 5 hours, well within the 24 hour 3RR rule. Thank you Zabanio (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- That was 21:54 last night. To blcok almost a day alter for that would serve no purpose. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- The 3RR happened within 24 hours and the editor will be back again, trust me. So, block him now before it starts over again! The 3RR policy is clear, and the editor is in violation. Thanks Zabanio (talk) 19:44, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Admins aren't required to issue blocks. There seems to be a bona fide dispute about the quality of the sources, in which Amraamny has a pretty good argument, though he should not have continued to revert. It would be sensible for Zabanio and Amraamny to discuss the quality of the sources (blogs versus Aviation Week) on the talk page. I have notified Amraamny of this report and invited him to respond here. If agreement can't be reached, use WP:Dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 21:14, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:JacobJosephFrank reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: 24h)
Page: Pamela Geller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JacobJosephFrank (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [75]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [80]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [81]
Comments:
- - Reguest and offer to the user to self revert the violating fourth revert - [82] Off2riorob (talk) 17:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked – for a period of 24 hours HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:174.0.35.250 reported by User:Sjones23 (Result: Protected)
Page: The Busy World of Richard Scarry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.0.35.250 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
All times are UTC.
- 1st revert: 03:36, December 31, 2010 (repeated restoration of unsourced content of the article)
- 2nd revert: 17:12, December 31, 2010 (2nd restoration of unsourced and false content, along with the restoration of flagicons, which are deprecated in the infobox)
- 3rd revert: 17:29, December 31, 2010 (3rd restoration of the 2nd revert)
- 4th revert: 17:37, December 31, 2010 (4th restoration of the 2nd revert)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [83]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page [84]
Comments: Please note that this edit war has been going on between the IP that I am reporting and another IP, 68.202.56.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), since December 7, 2010 if you check the history page of the article. The IP has been constantly adding unsourced information to the article, like adding an unsourced claim about Playhouse Disney to the infobox. In assuming good faith, I removed the flagicons per the guidelines at WP:MOSFLAGICON and Template:Infobox_television#Attributes, and listed only the original channels where the program originally aired at (i.e. Nickelodeon and Showtime), but it was reverted by the reported IP. Today, I reverted only three times to this article within 24 hours, therefore, I did not violate 3RR, but I feel that filing a report here is necessary. Also note that I have opened up a discussion to see if this dispute can be resolved at the Television WikiProject's talk page, as seen in the resolution difference above. On the article's talk page, Trainfan01 posted a note asking of Playhouse Disney is sourced, and an IP replied that there are no sources to be found for the repeated additions and removals of this information (the discussion cam be found here). I understand very well that edit warring will not be tolerated and will make things worse, and I sincerely apologize if I did get involved in this edit war. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Page protected HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Serienfan2010 reported by User:Aoi (Result: Serienfan2010 2 months (3rd offense), IP 1 month (block evasion) )
Page: ICarly (season four) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Serienfan2010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [85]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [90]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None
Comments:
The user in question has apparently been blocked for edit warring twice before, according to his/her talk page. Not sure if this is a 3RR violation because the IP user s/he is warring with is apparently a sockpuppet of the banned user Simulation12[91] 青い(Aoi) (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
- Blocked Serienfan2010 was warring at this article and at Zendaya Coleman. Apparently a one month block didn't suffice to get the 'no edit warring' message, so let's see if two months works. The IP was blocked for one month (static IP) for confirmed block evasion and edit warring. KrakatoaKatie 22:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
User:Deliciousgrapefruit reported by User:Cptnono (BLP violation) (Result: )
Page: Glenn Beck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Deliciousgrapefruit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to: [92]
The user has not crossed 3/rr but I have little doubt that he would if we kept on reverting due to the rapid reverting. I does not need to be 3/rr to be edit warring anyways. I am bringing this up now since it is a BLP. There has been lengthy discussion nd there is no consensus for the edit. More than one user disagrees with its inclusion and another agreed that it could be included but there was further discussion on how to handle the edit. The user can continue to seek consensus through more discussion or even an RFC but I am seeking a short block of the editor to limit disruption and removal of the contentious edit unti consensus on how to handle the material is achieved.Cptnono (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [95]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Glenn Beck#Believes 10% of Muslims are Terrorists/Talk:Glenn Beck#Beck's view on Muslims
Comments: