Page:Oasis (band) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Crolladder (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Dispute on article talk page:talk
Note that I am not directly involved in this in any way, but some users tried to reach consensus on talk page, and the user reported here continued reverting w/o trying to reach consensus.
- CETTALK18:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Warned — Looks like a new user; hasn't reverted since you informed him of this report. I tacked on an extra warning just to be sure. Feel free to update if he continues. --slakr\ talk /21:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)Also, as I notedhere, Crolladder is making some rather false, inflammatory claims.WesleyDodds (talk)23:25, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Note: With this latestrevert after being warned, I have blocked Crolladder for 24 hours.Elockid(Talk)15:31, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Page:List_of_Navy_SEALs
User being reported:76.173.247.200 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[1]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[7]Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[8]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[9]Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[10]
Comments: I have made every effort to communicate with this individual and persuade them that the WIKI standard is verifiability yet they insist on putting Jesse Ventura on the List of Navy Seals in spite of the fact that I have documented that he was not with reliable sources. It would be great to get this page semi-protected for a period of time. Thank you for your consideration.V7-sport (talk)07:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
Blocked – for a period of12 hoursCourcelles10:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)Thanks-V7-sport (talk)21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)V7-Sport
Page:Southern United States (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Nezzdude (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
This is the second user blanking this same section of the article in two days. Possibly the same person. No explanation given for the deletions except "Why promote nationalism?" or "Fascism". Section is well-cited. Multiple editors have reverted the deletions and provided warnings.
—Eastcote (talk)12:29, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
User should be blocked for 24 hours, while the first edit might not seem like a revert, the IP before that was removing the same content, so I consider it a revert and a 3rr.Secretaccount17:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of4 days The same length as71.114.188.40 (talk ·contribs). Normally this would be 24 hours. Given however that an inactive account suddenly became active again after a year of inactivity and reinstate the same edits as the IP is a bit too much of a coincidence for me.Elockid(Talk)19:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)We've got a slight edit war inDeadwood (TV series)#Themes. Here's the relevant talk section:Talk:Deadwood_(TV_series)#No_way_to_contribute_to_this_article. Common sense and democracy failed.User:RepublicanJacobite won't let go. We need your help.109.186.62.61 (talk)01:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution.Magog the Ogre (talk)01:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Would someone please have a word with this editor? S/he is mass-removing images from five articles, out of some support for [[[User:Xanderliptak]]. I reverted the removals as unnecessary and inappropriate, and have attempted[12][13] discussion on the user's talkpage, as well as a warning for editwarring[14]. All comments have been summarily removed from the talkpage, followed by further reverts.
This user appears to be under the belief that they somehow have someownership of these pages do to their ancestry and having 'commissioned' these images.[15]
This user further seems to be trying to turn this into abattle.[16] The words 'send the enemy scattering' are telling.
This user doesn't appear to understandWP:BRD (despite attempts on both their talkpage and in edit summaries to educate them), nroWP:OWN. If someone uninvolved could have a word, that would be great.
Yes, I reverted as well. Will do no further. → ROUX ₪ 23:10, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Please remain CIVIL. I know you have had edit disputes with me in the past, but no need to say someone is a liar when you disagree, I don't accuse you of being a liar when I disagree with you, and there is no reason to swear. You have been blocked for civility issues in the past, please don't make the same mistake.[talk]XANDERLIPTAK01:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Warned — Added warnings for both roux and DinDraithou, since this is obviously not vandalism and thus should not have been the subject of a revert war. --slakr\ talk /08:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Page:The Age of Stupid (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:
Previous version reverted to:18:11, October 18, 2010
IP's 1, 2, and 3 warned around 08:00, October 25, 2010
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[19]Comments:
I think the only solution to this edit warring is to semiprotect all climate change articles, at least all those about films. —Arthur Rubin(talk)08:21, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Page protected a chunk of the articles and blocked some recent ips. Also sent an abuse report to SBC/ATT, because they're obviously all the same user. I don't want to have to deal with this insanity again. In the meantime, if he keeps at it, feel free to report any ip used directly toWP:AIV orWP:ANI, and any page toWP:RFPP. --slakr\ talk /09:59, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Page:Hiro Mizushima (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:LovelieHeart (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)User being reported:YumeChaser (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[20]
argument is over the pronouciation of the subjects name
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[25]
Comments:
--Lerdthenerd (talk)09:34, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Excuse me? I DID compromise with Yume. I left in parts of the format she edited. The only thing I did NOT budge on was the fact that his name is spelled SAITOU in English because it's not right. Unless otherwise specified, SAITOU is the native spelling (though it can be spelled SAITOH, SAITO, SAITOO, etc in English). Yume used inappropriate language on my page. If Yume would have just left the Hiro page alone long enough for me to finish it, there would have been no "war." I save my work on Wiki as I go so I don't lose it and everytime I go back to add more to it, Yume would edit it and I would get an "edit conflict" notice and have to go back and REDO everything I'd just wrote then so I could have it in the original style to know how to add to it, hence the numerous edits. I'm trying to update the page, which has sat idle for months, and everytime I go to fix something, Yume was too busy messing up my formatting and facts before I could properly source them and finish it. So frankly, if she had just given me a few hours free, the page would have been completed with no problem. And the ironic thing is, now I can't go back and finish the page with information because I'm too afraid I'll get suspended for it.—Precedingunsigned comment added byLovelieHeart (talk •contribs)20:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Result - Both parties warned. Any continuation of this edit war may lead to blocks, regardless of whatWP:MOS says. (MOS is guidance but it is not a policy). Use the talk page to try to get support from other editors. The person who gives you a 3RR warning is under no obligation to tell you about the filing of a report; you're expected to do what is necessary regardless. If the issues you are disputing are truly important, you'll be able to find other editors who agree.EdJohnston (talk)20:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (film) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Ryasweeney (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Comments: Source given states 150 minutes, user keeps changing it to 147 without a reason. Xeworlebi (talk)18:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
He stopped revert warring after you warned him, recommend no blockSecretaccount21:52, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Warned As Secret said, no violation after warning.Looie496 (talk)22:47, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Page:Massacre of Lviv professors (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Faustian (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[26]
Above is a continuation of an edit war conducted earlier:[32][33][34][35]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]
Comments:
The user has introduced very exceptional claim to the article based on one questionable publication in Ukrainian language.User failed to provide additional sources as per policy: "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Requests from various user for more sources are often met with personal attacks (see talk page) and edit war.--Jacurek (talk)19:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
This is part of a continuing edit war in which another user was just blocked a few days ago, and it's multiple users revert warring each other I recommend that the page be protected.Secretaccount21:55, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I see five different users reverting in the past week two from one side and three from another side (one of whom got blocked), that doesn't indicate that the revert warring will stop. Blocking one editor won't help if the other editor is there to keep on revert warring. That's why it should be protected.Secretaccount22:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. 3 days.Looie496 (talk)22:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Comment by Faustian: I have already stated that I would not revert again until after this is resolved elswhere (diff here:[47]), if others decide to continue to remove the sourced information. I added information that was referenced (diff:[48]). This info was removed with the phrase "removed ridiculous accusation." I took this case to RFC with no response from nuetral parties. I asked an admin to intervene: (here:[49]). When the source itself was taken to the reliable sources noticeboard, both noninvolved comentators concluded that it was a reliable source:[50]. "In reply to Faustian from above, if the material isn't contained in the English language Marples, then there is no problem with sourcing it from the equally scholarly and reliable Patrylyak.Fifelfoo (talk) 16:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)" Looking at theedit history, we have three editors seeking to remove this statement based on a reliable source, four trying to keep it. Looking at those three trying to remove the sourced statement, two - including the one bringing this to ANI (see here for a taste:[51]) - have extensive histories of ethnic edit-warring and this seems to be an example of an ethnic edit war; trying to keep info that they deem bad of Poles, apparently, off wikipedia. I am trying to be reasonable with them:[52] but they do not seem to be interested and I would prefer not to simply censor the information. It looks like a minority is trying to censor information. Any solution proposed by you guys would be welcome by me.Faustian (talk)22:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Fred Singer (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:67.176.220.219 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
An anon IP has arrived atFred Singer, one of the climate-change-skepticism BLPs, and is removing criticism from it. This is a BLP that has been written carefully to make sure it's BLP-compliant, and the material the anon is removing is well-sourced. I left a note for him on article talk at 20:37 Oct 25 asking him to explain his concerns,[54] and at 20:42 on his talk page explaining about 3RR,[55] but he continued to revert.SlimVirgintalk|contribs21:42, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
I just rollbacked his revert, I recommend a block or the page at least semi as removing sections is considered vandalism.Secretaccount21:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of48 hoursLooie496 (talk)22:29, 25 October 2010 (UTC)Page:Mega Drive (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:SexyKick (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
The original report is collapsed, because it made my eyes hurt and my brain bleed.Haven't edited the diffs, checking now. --slakr\ talk /07:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Extended content | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
User:SexyKick Hello there, I would like to reportUser:SexyKick for initiating edit wars by continuously reverting valid edits made to theMega Drive article, removing tags set by admins, and re-inserting non-free content. My attempt to contact this person via his/her talk page (several times) remained fruitless. He kept reverting edits (even those by admins, removing the non-free & cleanup tag, repeatedly:August 10th A,August 10th B,August 8th, anddid not stop until tonite). Prior to that, this personcontacted me accusing me of vandalism when I tried to reword a few sentences of a section of the article ("Console Wars") with the goal to eventually clean the entire article of bias, speculation and weasel words to focus on facts alone. Here'sthe edit in question. I have observed that since I made that edit (made June 28th!), practically every single edit made to the article was reverted by this person. I hope you can help. I really don't know what to do with this guy.DCEvoCE (talk)04:16, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
DCEvoCE (talk)05:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
|
Declined — As of this report it doesn't look like there's an actual violation of thethree revert rule. Granted, three reverts isn't a privilege, and there's still some sort of minor edit warring going on, but it's borderline to the point that if it continues, 3RR or not, it willdefinitely be an edit war. What concerns me the most isthis new account magically appearing (Uberdrivefan123 (talk ·contribs)), which is almost certainly asock ormeatpuppet.Still, even though that's shady, the puppet's revert wouldn't put the puppetmaster over the revert limit, but using socks in an edit war, alone, puts you on the losing side due to the inherently abusive attempt togame the system. If any of you continue to use socks or edit while signed out in an attempt to try to "win," you will likely be blocked twice as long as the person with whom you're warring. Consider this the last warning for all parties involved: take it to the articlestalk page --slakr\ talk /07:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Page:Hyundai Elantra (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Shimman (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
—Bidgee (talk)09:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria..Courcelles15:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Comments:WP:SPA user who removes sourced information which he calls unencyclopedic and inaccurate. Some edits partly contained correct edits, bit all removed the same sourced information of her graduation. Edits from the last 24 hours, went on before that. Xeworlebi (talk)17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Page protected by SlimVirginSecretaccount20:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Teramo (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
This user (probably an Italian one from Teramo, as he edits only this article), is continuously reverting the article tothis version, reverting all modifications made betweenthis version and his first reverts.
I tried to warn him to stop revert the article to his rather crude version, but he did not reply and continued in his reverting actions. --'''Attilios''' (talk)17:51, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Warned Both of you are at 3R, so this pretty much needs to stop, the next revert will draw a block.Courcelles09:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)DDF19483 (talk)19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Palestinian freedom of movement (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:208.54.86.35 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)69.26.208.78 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[61]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[67]
Comments:
The two IPs above are obviously controlled by the same user, both go back to the exact same location, besides edit warring on Palestinian freedom of movement above, the user who controls these two IPs have been edit warring at Israeli salad:[68][69][70] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk)21:58, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Purely for the record; Iattempted to address this w/ a SPI.NickCT (talk)02:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:List of the verified oldest people (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported: IP et al.
Previous version reverted to:[71] Note that I initiated the debolding of the then-roman text in second graf first sentence "As of" perWP:MOSBOLD. Most edits by IP range familiar to NickOrnstein[72][73].
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[87]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[88] last in long thread
Comments:
Both sides are engaged in long-time edit war (without true 3RR violations), but one side is citing what they see as an unambiguousWP:MOSBOLD rule, while the other is citing "common-sense exception", meaning local article tradition. In favor of bold are listed above (5 counting IPs as 1); in favor of roman or italic are myself, Itsmejudith, Griswaldo (the other side of the reverts, naturally); also on talk, Tcncv, Canada Jack, Frank (6). Advice requested.JJB 16:27, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Aside from this, I see Brendanology's bolding being applied in a logical manner, such as "bolding" the "as of" date which changes every day. It's something that needs constant visual attention. As for italics, they often give the idea of special meaning or emphasis per what the sentence is trying to say. In this case, an exception should be considered because the "bolding" being employed is being used NOT to bring notice to the sentence itself, but to the date. In other words, the "article text" is little more than an explanation of what the information in the tables mean. Since the purpose of use is different, a different treatment than "italics" should considered. Finally, I'm NOT going to employ JJBulten's stack-the-deck political machination to make it appear that one position or another has overwhelming/widespread support. The fact that the "bolding" on these tables and lists stayed the way they did for over a year, maybe two, speaks to the implicit consensus of the many editors who read them. A search of the talk page finds others in support. They can comment here if they so choose, no need for me to "name names." The bottom line is that practical exceptions to Wikipedia "guidelines" regarding "style" should be employed, and that the edit history of JJBulten starting and causing trouble (not surprising, considering he is a right-wing conservative blogger, so he has perfected the art of online aggression off-wiki) should lead a neutral third-party person to consider what his motivations are, and more so whether his "changes" make the article worse, which I think they do.Ryoung12217:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
And JJB, your citation of the edit warring notice on my userpage is inappropriate. There was no such "edit warring" situation at the time you put up this notice, which makes it completely improper for you to cite it as one of the actions you have taken.Brendan (TalK|ContriB)03:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC) |
Page:Pashto language (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Chartinael (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[89]
Comment:--Kaddoo (talk)17:56, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Warned Both above andLagoo sab (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log).Magog the Ogre (talk)19:46, 28 October 2010 (UTC)Sorry to cut in late, but I most obviously disagree about the warning. Lagoo reverted my well sourced clean up edits. The issue has already been taken to the discussion page. Relevant edits:
WP:3RR has no exception for "my edits are well sourced". This isn't a matter of discussion.Magog the Ogre (talk)21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Times Square (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:173.220.184.2 (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: [diff]
Comments:
Blocked – for a period of24 hoursLooie496 (talk)22:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Berber people (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Rarevogel (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) /84.83.145.241 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[100]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[110]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[111]
Comments:
Page:Zastava M21 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:O Fenian (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:Before the contribution in question
The contribution in question is the addition of "Cameroon" into the list of countries that use the article's item.
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: I don't know how that is done.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk page, several of my entries have been deleted, one named "???" is still there..for now.
Comments:
The contribution in question is the addition of "Cameroon" into the list of countries that use the article's item. Proof for that are various pictures from a military parade in Cameroon where the item in question can be seen clearly. Since it is just logical that not every small sale is being reported on in the media, finding written sources is next to impossible. Pictures are proof enough that it is there as the members of the Cameroon Armed Forces can be clearly identified. I repeat: The source are the pictures itself, not the words or opinions posted by someone on the site where the pictures are taken from. Even after additional sources, which prove that a contract on the sale of weaponry to the country in question existed, have been added, the User still reverts the article saying that the sources don't specifically mention the weapon in question. They however do not mention any details on what specifically is being sold at all, which, as I already wrote, is common, as not everything small is reported in the media. Add to that that the other countries listed don't have any sources at all. And, except for two countries which have a source, the only sources that the item in question is being used are pictures, as well. So this restriction on my contribution doesn't make sense at all. I tried to explain the logic several times, but it seems that the User in question has some sort of bias or reason why he doesn't want my contribution to be there at all.92.229.22.236 (talk)01:44, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Here are the diffs, as generated by the 3rr.php tool. They appear to be the same ones that the submitter intended.
I'll let some other admin close this. —EdJohnston (talk)04:55, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Jerry McNerney (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Thomttran (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[113]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[121]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[122](Invites to talk page:[123] and[124])
Comments:
No comments.Guoguo12--Talk-- 19:54, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Already blocked for a period of31 hoursMagog the Ogre (talk)20:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)Page:Template:Number systems (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:178.140.84.25 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:20:19, October 29, 2010
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:01:33, October 30, 2010
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Sorry, I haven't done that. However, it's aTemplate, which should generally remain stable, in the absence of specific reasons to change.
Comments:
—Arthur Rubin(talk)04:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Edit warring by Arthur Rubin:
--178.140.84.25 (talk)17:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I added a comment on the article's discussion page, attempting to dicuss the issue:[129], but Arthur Rubin still has to reply. It should be noted that if I was a new user, unexplained and unmotivated silent reverts by Arthur Rubin would certainly disrupt my image of Wikipedia, as a new user probably would not know that such issues are better discussed on a talk page.--178.140.84.25 (talk)17:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours The IP is at about 6 reverts against two editors, which is not acceptable. I hope nevertheless that Arthur Rubin will see fit to respond to the message on the talk page.Looie496 (talk)18:42, 30 October 2010 (UTC)I think the warning already given against edit warring on these two article should be put into effect.Esoglou (talk)07:39, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment Please bear in mind that admins who look at reports here are probably not intimately familiar with the background. Looking at the history, I presume you are talking aboutTaiwan boi (talk ·contribs), and I can see that there was a 3RR violation on Oct 27. If the editor is continuing to revert against consensus it may well constitute edit warring, but I cannot tell merely by looking at the diffs whether the edits are reverts or whether there is consensus. You'll have to give a bit more evidence, I'm afraid.Looie496 (talk)18:35, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Page:Chitta Batta (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Comment: Yipes. Just somebody take a look, huh? I was going to just hard revert this to something that didn't suck, but was afraid these two would just go on and on. I'm not real patient with the WP "paperwork". You're my hero. Really. Thanks. --LilHelpa (talk)14:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Southern United States (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Rjensen (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[130]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[136]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: In an ES, another ed asked Rjensen to explain his source and text removals at the article talk.[137]
Comments:
The started after I challenged this unsourced statement: "Every shopping mall in the United States sells the same Chinese-made products". Another editor removed it, and Rjensen reinserted it noting that is is "common knowledge".
Hoppingalong (talk)22:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Note I'm very reluctant to block an editor who was been editing since 2005 with a clean block record and is clearly making some effort to cooperate. I have left a talk page message confirming the 3RR violation and asking Rjensen not to force the issue. I would like to leave it here for the moment in the hope that the problem does not continue.Looie496 (talk)22:35, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Stratioti (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
The development of this page is obstructed by edit warring based on ethnic origins of stratioti. This discourages editors interested in the operational history from improving the article. I have asked at MILHIST and been recommended to seek an adminstrative viewMonstrelet (talk)08:52, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Richard Garnett (philologist) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:cygnis insignis (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[138]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[143]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[144]
Comments:
Yousou (report)16:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The 'semi-automated' approach isWP:TW. Also Note that he refuses to use the hangon template.Yousou (report)16:07, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. I must be getting soft, I could have blocked both editors. I removed the speedy tag and protected for a week.Dougweller (talk)17:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Page:Cthulhu (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Ekwos (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[145]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[148]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[149]
Comments:
Ekwos has begun edit warring to remove, wholesale, the "In popular culture" section fromCthulhu. Once hethreatened me with a report for reverting him, and continued to edit war after I opened discussion and he responded in it, I supposed it was time to just come here. —chaos5023 (talk)00:04, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
See alsoannouncement of intention to continue edit warring posted while I was working on this report. —chaos5023 (talk)00:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
The same behavior is now in evidence atShoggoth:[150][151]
Ekwos appears to have abandoned edit warring as his approach to these articles in favor of criteria-based trimming, so I would like towithdraw this report, if that's how it's done. —chaos5023 (talk)07:28, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Page:Bilderberg Group (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Loremaster (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[152]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[157]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[158]
Comments:
Please advise if I'm out of line, but I think this is pretty straightforward. Loremaster appears to not understand the policy, seethis, perhaps someone can clarify it to him (or perhaps to me)). Thanks,--Nuujinn (talk)20:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of72 hours Blatant edit-warring: "Let's resolve on the talk page" accompanied by reversions on sight. Looking at the user's block log, he or she is well aware of the relevant policies. I would have gone for longer than 72 hours but it is some time since the last block.Mkativerata (talk)20:20, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Page:Shaun Alexander (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Raider Duck (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shaun_Alexander&oldid=394121978
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: [diff]
Comments:
Raider Duck is continuously forcing an inaccurate edit on the article of Shaun Alexander. He is saying he is a FORMER player, but Alexander has never retired and has said he still wants to play in the NFL and is actively seeking a position with a team.
Can you please stop him from telling people his opinion is the only one, changing it to his preferred content and threatening users with claims of "vandalism"? That has got to be some kind of abuse of the rules, doesn't it?
PLEASE do something about this. He's just unrelenting in his hostility.67.170.110.1 (talk)06:27, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Result - Protected two weeks. It is annoying that the IP is hopping from one address to another, but I do not perceive that Raider Duck has obtained any clear consensus on the talk page. Consider an RFC, make a request at a WikiProject, or try other steps ofWP:Dispute resolution. If anyone believes the IP is a sock, consider making a report atWP:SPI.EdJohnston (talk)18:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Number 57 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Previous version reverted to:[159]
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Ignored attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[160]
Comments:
The dispute is if this political party can be described as right-wing party or a far-right party. Reliable sources are available using both descriptions, even within the same local newspapers. In this edit, I attempted to introduce a RS sourced compromise using both descriptionsin this edit, but the editor, an admin no less, merely reverted to meet his POV. There had been inconclusive discussion last year in which the editor usesWP:SYNTH to come to the conclusion that the party can ONLY be decribed as far-right and refuses to include other information. Even with AGF, the editor, has conveniently waited 24hours + 20minutes to make the fourth revert without bothering to discuss. The editor, an avid political contributor, assumes he is the end-all expert in the area and has a history of edit warring, seehere. —Shuki (talk)13:33, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Chris Gibson
Arbor832466:Arbor832466 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:
3RR warning:[165]
I have made an attempt to discuss this, the other editor started the discussion, but then continued to edit I asked that we wait on consensus but they would not wait see:[166]
:
This has been a continued issue with the user, they have previously simply blanked this section previously rather then making any serious effort to improve it. I also had previously tried to engage them, but they simply did not engage see[167]Theeagleman (talk)18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you,
Theeagleman (talk)18:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of24 hoursCourcelles18:39, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Led Zeppelin IV (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Hoops gza (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[168]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[174]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Been discussed on user's talk page and in the edit log - which from the comments I think this user is aware of.
Comments:
Dpmuk (talk)00:46, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:Little Green Footballs (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Sundowners (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[175]
i'm sorry, i'm not certain of how to use the warning templates. i'll drop him a note on his user page.
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[178]
Comments:
i'm not certain if i have this form filled out correctly, so here's how i jotted it down in wordpad:
user:Sundowners is edit-warring at the article forLittle Green Footballs
He blanked the section: "Alteration and Deletion of Posts here.[[179]]
another user reinstated it, and he blanked it again here. [[180]]
finally, i reinstated it with an advisement to discuss the section in talk, but he instead blanked it again here. [[181]]
I have reverted again, but this looks like it's going to be a problem.
also, another fresh user,Spacejesus5000, has entered the fray, along with a couple of opponents.
76.248.144.143 (talk)05:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Page protected by Ged UK. -Atmoz (talk)17:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Age disparity in sexual relationships (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:AVanover (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
AVanover has attempted to add dubiously sourced content toAge disparity in sexual relationships regarding the mythical "half your age plus 7 rule". After I reverted his unsourced edits, the user reverted back to his content with an added citation to the ever reliableUrban Dictionary, which offers half a dozen "definitions" for the phrase. User refuses to participate in an active discussion on thearticle talk page regarding this content. I am under the impression that Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source based onprevious discussions on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.—Uncle Dick (talk)09:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Note I have reverted the edit and warned the editor, as it is a clear violation ofWP:RS. Any further attempts to re-add this material without support from other editors will result in a block.Looie496 (talk)18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Kansai International Airport (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Inspector123 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Note that while some words, such as those starting with "f" and "b" are common enough for all to understand, a lot of the rant is incomprehensible to me, but I assume it is swearing.
Also, all of these avatars have (individually and collectively) exceeded 3RR by some margin. And the page listed above is just one example.Jasepl (talk)15:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Page protected I have semi-protected the article, which should at least prevent sock disruption for a while.Looie496 (talk)18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)I would like to report this sockpuppet of Zaps93 and 124x247x221x146 kindly take strict notice of this person, also see how in defience he reverts valid edits as if he owns this site, he's disturbed now because his authority is being challenged.119.155.37.2 (talk)16:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide completediffs. Note: There is no user named Jaspel.Looie496 (talk)17:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Portal:Current events/2010 October 24 (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Arthur Rubin (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)Passionless (talk) 18:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)This user may be an admin, but he reverted the same edit 15 times in 12 hours ( Oct 24 Current Events), and tried to start a war with me on another issue in the same portal.Passionless (talk)16:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Note You'll have to provide some evidence if you want those statements taken seriously. The statement about reverting the same edit 15 times in 12 hours is obviously false, as the article history shows.Looie496 (talk)17:49, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Declined Could use some more discussion and the phrasing is suboptimal, but no big deal. -2/0(cont.)19:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Cyprus (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Austria12 (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:[188]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A; please note that I (Richwales) am only reporting an incident which I observed; I myself have not been involved in any recent editing on this page.
Comments: I advised the user of this notification on histalk page. He responded bysemi-blanking his talk page.
Richwales (talk ·contribs)17:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Considerdispute resolution. BothAustria12 (talk ·contribs) andStephen G. Brown (talk ·contribs) have violated 3RR here.Looie496 (talk)18:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Note Update: Austria12 has been blocked as a sock of a banned editor, and I have therefore unprotected the page.Looie496 (talk)19:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Berber people (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Rarevogel (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) /84.83.145.241 (talk ·contribs)
Comments:
Note: This is a notice of edit-warring, not 3RR violation.User:Rarevogel /User:84.83.145.241 was blocked a couple of days ago for persistent edit-warring on theBerber people article. The report is here:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive143#User:Rarevogel / User:84.83.145.241 reported by User:Jayjg (Result: 24 hours). In essence, since September 21 he has regularly reverted an infobox to his own preferred pictures, while refusing to discuss why, or the appropriateness of his edits, on the article talk page. Following the block, he edited a small amount using his userid, but still did not discuss the issue. Today he returned to the page as his IP, andreverted to his infobox yet again. He still has made no comment on the article talk page; nor, in fact, even in the edit-summary of his latest revert.Jayjg(talk)19:18, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of1 week (The IP, that is.)Looie496 (talk)19:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Sriracha sauce (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:99.231.241.146 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
This article is the site of an edit war by a contentious IP on one side, and myself and two other registered editors on the other. IP removes information because the company website (not an RS) claims something different, and dubious. IP then screams vandalism. Several times this past hour, so our rollbacks will appear as 3RR, when in fact we were returning the article to its previous state.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk)11:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
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: [diff]
Comments:
Page:Second Intifada (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Ezzex (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Comments:
User: Ezzex has now violated 3RR by making 5 reverts and reverting four editors in a span of less than 3hrs. He fails to discuss his reverts on the Talk page and offers no explanation in the edit summary. He has also been given a previous 48hr block for edit warring[189]--Jiujitsuguy (talk)00:41, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of1 week Recent and rapid edit-warring. The warning came late but as he/she has been blocked previously for edit-warring a warning is unnecessary. Will also notify of ARBPIA discretionary sanctions.Mkativerata (talk)00:46, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Gangwon Provincial College (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Gangwonackr (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:[195]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: As the user in question is the sole significant content contributer, I have explained relevant guidelines in his/her talk page.
Comments:
This report is for edit waring, not 3RR.User:Gangwonackr has been changing reference to theSea of Japan to "East Sea", ignoring guidelines (WP:NC-KO) provided in the edit summary and the editor's talk page. He/She has never explained his/her edit in edit summary and did not responded in talk pages. --Kusunose07:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:Gun laws in the United States (by state) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:JPMcGrath (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 04:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
—Hamitr (talk)04:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hours --slakr\ talk /17:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Charles Hapgood (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Thanos5150 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 07:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Comments:
I'm not sure who is right here (but will look into it later) and it is being discussed on the talk page, but the editor has been blocked for edit warring recently and should know better by now.Dougweller (talk)07:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of1 week However you define revert there are more than three of them within 24 hours and coming so soon after the last block nothing shorter than a week off is warranted.Mkativerata (talk)07:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Siula Grande (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Anaxial (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: [diff]
Comments:
Here is the case...I'm an Anon, and a responsible Wikipedia user. I see a mistake, I correct it. I don't login. Period.
I went to theSiula Grande page today and found, a curiously incorrect statement about first ascent of the peak:1936 July 28 North Ridge by Arnold Schwarzenegger and Erwin Schneider from Germany. I'm like, ok that's not true, may be some one did a mistake or it's a case of vandalism. So I go to history and see that yes, the edit22:40, 1 November 2010 168.156.43.239 replaces the wordAwerzger withSchwarzenegger. So I undo that edit to revert the article back to the previous version which looks fine. I come back to the page after watchingTouching the Void (film) to check a fact, voila... I have a warning on my Anon talk page fromUser:Anaxial for seeminglyvandalizing the article.
Is reverting any anon edit without reading a norm these days? It wasn't so when Wikipedia was new!I did write a strong-worded note on the user's talk page and undid his/her changes. But then I went to the user's talk archive and found this has been going for a long time. There are many such reports of incorrect accusations of vandalism.
My question is what action, if any, can you Admins take against this user?
Or no action will be taken as it doesn't matter because Anon edits are bullshit anyways?
Regards,
A fairly pissed off long-time Anon contributor... AND I won't goddamn create an account again to login!--117.195.211.24 (talk)20:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Number 57 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 22:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Comments:
Number 57received a 12 hour block for 3RR earlier in the week at this page, but does not seem to care less and comes back to blindly revert all other editors who disagree with his evident POVWP:OWNership of the page and decision pick and choose the sources he deems worthy. The above six edits occurred after his block was lifted, the last four violate 3RR again. All four edits seem to rv an entirely different editor and the edit war is purely being waged by Number 57 against others. The editor will claim that one of the rvs was a sock, fine, still should have taken a step back. --109.186.253.85 (talk)22:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Progress (Take That album) is being constantly reverted by User:Yids2010 claiming "you have no reason to keep changing this. its the same as the other version but without mentioning irrelevant artists. i will continue to revert until you understand that.", violating 3RR rule.Reqluce (talk)00:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
I agree this is severe edit warring with personal attacks throwing in, I recommend a block for both.Secretaccount02:48, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
WarnedRodhullandemu (talk ·contribs) is on top of this, so I will refrain from blocking both editors to see if they discontinue edit warring. If either editor continues, I think a block would be in order anyway. Reqluce, I would appreciate if you were to moderate your tone. For the most part, there is no need to address other editors in your edit summaries, and especially not in such a manner as might drive them off. -2/0(cont.)03:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Senkaku Islands (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:HighSpeed-X (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: First told about rule at:[201], officially warned at[202]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Since the editor appeared to be new (although now that I check, user has edited sporadically since March), I brought it to their talk page rather than the article's talk (as I wasn't sure if they were aware of how article talk pages work, but at least a personal talk page produces automatic warnings).
Comments:
User is making nationlist edits to a contentious article by removing names from one side of the dispute. As pointed out to the editor, this very issue is not only being discussed on the article's talk page, but is also the subject of its own article,Senkaku Islands dispute. Editor was asked to stop reverting and join our conversations there, but refuses to do so. Editor needs a temporary block to prevent continued edit warring on the page, and to hopefully convince the user to discuss the issue rather than just warring about it.Qwyrxian (talk)01:08, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of31 hours And I consider this lenient.Magog the Ogre (talk)02:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Judaism (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Greyshark09 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[203]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[208]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Judaism#"Mosaic Law"
Comments:
Not necessarily four reverts in 24 hours, but edit-warring nevertheless. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk02:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:Judaism (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Lisa (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[209]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[215]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:Talk:Judaism#"Mosaic Law"
Comments:
Clearly a 3RR violation. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk02:47, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
You could have combined for both users you know, but it's a clear violation of 3rr by a person who should know better, see the last dif. I don't think Greyshark should be blocked because he stopped edit warring after Lisa's "warning" and it wasn't four reverts during 24 hours, but Lisa should.Secretaccount02:55, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Warned Lisa is over the line by my count, but has also made substantial efforts to engage in discussion and attract the attention of other interested editors. The violation is only by an hour or so, so I do not think that a strict reading would be beneficial here. Greyshark09 has been repeatedly inserting substantively the same material, but as Secret notes has not done so after being appraised ofWP:3RR. They have also been advised on usertalk to avoidWP:OR, so hopefully this can proceed to productive discussion without further delay.User:Lisa: please be more careful in counting your reverts and more patient in waiting for outside input.User:Greyshark09, please wait forconsensus before reintroducing material with which another editor disagrees.There is no deadline. If you return your edit to that article without a clear and active consensus atTalk:Judaism, I willblock you foredit warring. -2/0(cont.)04:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Filioque (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Rwflammang (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[216]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[220]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[221]
Comments:
Editor Esoglou has been following me through various Eastern Orthodox articles I have contributed to in the past and rewritten them to in ways that I have objected to. I however have not revert warring with Esoglou in quote sometime. Now it appears that Esoglou has a fellow Roman Catholic friend he has found who will now tag team with him to take out information that Esoglou does not like and can not refute with valid sourcing. However the information I have posted is valid (or was said to be so far) and sources involved directly in the issue.LoveMonkey (talk)13:53, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Note If I were going to block anybody here, it would be the filing editor. But it seems better to let this play out a little longer before intervening.Looie496 (talk)18:15, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Moving forward - this report is stale now, but EdJohnston raises a very good point. Looking at this in the context of the previous reports, LoveMonkey appears to be using this board as a weapon in content disputes, which is unacceptable. There also appear to be significant concerns regarding their use of sources. LM appears to be a major contributor to the topic area, and I would not be comfortable restricting them on this basis alone, but arequest for comment may be in order (pleaselet me know if anyone starts one). I would, however, caution LoveMonkey to be cautious in filing future reports to this board to ensure beforehand that adequate attempt has been made to resolve the dispute at the relevant talkpage and that their own editing practices are above reproach. I would also like to request that all involved parties avoid reverting each others' edits more than once (at most). This is merely a request, but it appears that this series of disputes is in danger of growing personalized and partisan, and that never ends well for anyone. Best of luck, -2/0(cont.)16:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
User: InaMaka has been acting in a disruptive manner during and after the recent United States midterm elections. In a span often minutes he made the following six reverts ([223],[224],[225],[226],[227],[228]), all of which were on candidate BLPs and all of which were reverts of edits made byUser: Arbor832466, against whom InaMaka appears to have a personal vendetta:[229]. He also inserts his own personal opinions into edit summaries, for example:[230][231][232]. Finally, he unilaterally deletes articles about candidates, claiming they are non-notable even though they received widespread media coverage:[233][234][235]; it's not up to InaMaka to decide what is notable and what isn't; and he expresses a very defiant, bullheaded attitude toward other editors:[236][237][238][239]. He has been repeatedly warned about such behavior on his talk page (and blockedthree times in the past for edit warring), but doesn't seem to ever learn. This behavior is quitelong-term and I think it's time it stopped.Stonemason89 (talk)22:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of1 week More on user's talkpage. -2/0(cont.)17:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Folk etymology (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
Users being reported:
Reporting a dispute atFolk etymology over the inclusion of material on the term as used in folklore; two editors will admit only material relating to linguistics. I have not been able to get either to address the actual issues, and indiscriminate reversions have been done. Additionally, there has been canvassing. One of the disputants is an admin, and is ruling there that my sources are non-RS. S/he has also placed a message on my talkpage accusing me of 3RR violation -- demonstrably untrue. Between them they may have done 3RR, but the overall behavior is what amounts to edit warring. The article is not improving, the atmosphere has soured; the effect is to exclude others from editing and controlling the article.
Previous version reverted to: [diff preferred, link permitted]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: [link][240][241]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: [diff][242]Comments:
Wow, I really screwed up the format, but don't know how. Sorry -- don't do this much.DavidOaks (talk) 02:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)DavidOaks (talk)02:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Here are the texts of refs from DavidOaks most recent reversions321 of the article, including a personally addressed command in the text of the article that I produce a ref for material he has added. My emphasis is in bold:
^ "The frequently encountered interpretation of this technical term of historical linguistics in the sense of a mere amateur etymology is itself a wrong conclusion from the word elements. By folk etymology is known always a specific phenomenon of language change, not a merely false etymology."Medeis, this is your source, so you'll have to supply the rest
^from Snopes.com: "A constant of folk etymologies seems to be that the odder a word sounds to us, the sillier the story we invent to explain its origins...." sv pumpernickel; "I'm not quite sure what to make of this folk etymology..." ("red light district" so-named because railmen left their lanterns at the door of the brothel; hardly morphological re-analysis; note the causalness of the usage, earmark of the established phrase, as linguists usually take it). "Pluck Yew" is aid to be a folk etymology; the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette treats of the folk etymology of "Lord Love a Duck."; “folk etymologies” are explicitly treated as equivalent to “etymological myths” in a course a U-Ontario [3];Sir James Fraser equates the two in note 1 p. 91 of his ed’n of Apollodorus (cites C.G. Heyne); David Wilton “Word Myths: Debunking Linguistic Urban Legends”. Oxford UP 2004
I request that DavidOaks be notified that his actions are inappropriate.μηδείς (talk)02:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:A Prophet (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Ring Cinema (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[243]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[250]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[251]
Comments: All plot summary related. Ring Cinema at first resisted a new plot section with reverts, then set about editing the new plot to resemble the former plot.
Geoff B (talk)20:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
You both violated 3rr in that article, page should be reverted to the version prior to the edit war and protected.Secretaccount02:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Not blocked If I'd caught this 24 hours ago, you'd both have been blocked. Too late, move on.Magog the Ogre (talk)05:50, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Eretz Yisrael Shelanu (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Number 57 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Time reported: 11:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
Comments:
Besides violating 3RR yesterday, Number 57 coming off a block at the beginning of the week continues his crusade to ensure only his POV appears in the article. In this case, he manages to revert multiple and different editors to prevent any balance being inserted into the article. As an admin, he should know that it is better to back off and let cool heads prevail. On top of that, to ensure his POV, he gets the page protected though there is no vandalism, only a content dispute. --Shuki (talk)11:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:B. K. S. Iyengar (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Hehest (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[252]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[257]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[258]
Comments:
Mutt Lunker (talk)20:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Blocked – for a period of24 hoursMagog the Ogre (talk)05:48, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Rain (entertainer) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:74.115.214.150 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) and221.130.18.185 (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: [diff]
Comments: This is the blocked userUser:InkHeart, who has on numerous occasions come back through anons to start edit wars.Ωphois00:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:St. John's University (New York) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:97.77.103.82 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) andCAtruthwatcher (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) (most likely the same person)
Previous version reverted to:5:42 11/3
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:IP warnedCAtruth warned
Discussions on talk pageherehere andhere.
Comments:
I took it here instead of ANI since it's most likely one person doing all the editing. Users both like to use the term "vandal" in their edit summaries, and refer to the three editors who've disagreed with them as sockpuppets.DCT•C08:01, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Both editors blocked – for a period of48 hours. The two users are confirmed to be the same editor.Magog the Ogre (talk)10:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Georgy Malenkov (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Trust Is All You Need (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[266]
See the article talk page discussion in the thread that I started:Talk:Georgy Malenkov#First Secretary for more details.Nsk92 (talk)14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Comments:
I should say that I myself am also guilty here - I actually have 4 reverts on the Malenkov article. I did not realize that I was in a breach of 3RR when doing the last revert. I did stop, and continued the discussion at the article talk page. However,User:Trust Is All You Need did not stop, but continued to edit-war and to revert another editor,User:Str1977, even after having been given a 3RR warning. Still, whomever reviews this report may want to block me as well, in the interests of fairness.Nsk92 (talk)14:56, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:Georgy Malenkov (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
, but exhibiting similar behaviour on related pages.User being reported:Trust Is All You Need (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:Revision as of 23:08, 30 October 2010
Discussions on talk pagehere, involving two different users trying to reason with the user.
Comments:
I came into an already existing conflict (partly about another issue) and started my report, not knowing that the user had already reverted that often.Str1977(talk)15:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
PS. Unbeknownst to me,User:Nsk92 reported the same case as well. I therefore make this section a subsection of his report.Str1977(talk)15:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:Georgy Malenkov (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
, but exhibiting similar behaviour on related pages.User being reported:Nsk92 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:Revision as of 13:41, 6 November 2010
Blocked All three blocked for 12 hours for a 3RR vio and a tag-team edit war.HJ Mitchell |Penny for your thoughts?15:27, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Coffee Party USA (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:NeutralityPersonified (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:Original insertion of disputed text
Diff of previous edit warring / 3RR warning for the same article:One of several warnings
See the article talk page discussion in this thread:Discussion for more details.
Comments:
Please seeWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TruthfulPerson/Archive for more information on this editor's history. This editor has been previously warned and blocked several times, and is quite familiar with policy.Xenophrenic (talk)21:47, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Warned There are definitely some ducky concerns, but the SPI was inconclusive. I have notified the user that edit warring is not on, which may hopefully solve the issue. -2/0(cont.)00:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)Page:Russian Census (2010) (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Lvivske (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[271]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[276] (He responded with a "no you are" response[277])
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:talk page discussion ignored; Discussion on both our talk pages, amounted to him calling me a conspiracy theorist for questioning the validity of a self-published blog.
Comments:
LokiiT (talk)23:04, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Note he added a fifthrevert, after warning editor should be blocked.Secretaccount19:02, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
The diffs on the same article for LokiiT are as follows:Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC
I've pointed Lvivske to the discussion here and asked him to respond. It seems that both users should be blocked for edit warring, unless they will agree to settle the dispute in a way that accords with policy.EdJohnston (talk)20:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:Qantas (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:87.114.90.86 (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[280]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:[285]
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:[286]
Comments:Several users have explained that this incident is not notable, but the user continues to edit war
--Dmol (talk)04:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Note - I knew this looked familiar: this exact edit is cited by a recently retired user less than 48 hours ago[287] as an example of why they left the project.87.112.207.101(talk ·contribs ·WHOIS) is pretty clearly the same user as the reported IP, so it would be 5 reverts instead of 4. I fixed the diffs in this report, as they were off.Doctalk05:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
Page:Kochi (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)
User being reported:Bijuts (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)
Previous version reverted to:[288]
Reverts from the first to last. The latest reverts are listed down:
29 September
15 October
24 October
25 October to 29 October
04 November
03 November
The user seems to have a strong and biased POV towardsKochi. His edit patterns are similar. For instance, He wanted to remove the sentence "second largest city behind the capital", as he do not want it to be told as second behind another city. He even tried to change theThiruvananthapuram article (which is the larget city in the state):[310], and was edit-warring in that article also for some time.
He wanted to remove the negetive images of Kochi:
He has not shown interest in Article talk pages andnever participated in the discussions there :[313]
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Comments:
BINOYTalk08:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
This user reverted my series of edits five times in total under the pretense of "reverting vandalism." The edits in question were clearly not vandalism, and I made edit summaries to that effect; he made no attempt to discuss with me. They were, I admit, controversial, but they clearly reflect what the cited sources say. I am willing to engage discussion with this user, but not to condone censorship on his part. Regardless of this dispute, he has clearly violated the 3RR.128.151.26.110 (talk)20:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
No violation Complaint is frivolous, and complainant may well be blocked forbringing this here.Wayne Olajuwon was quite correctly removing unsourced negative material, perWP:V. I see no discussion of this from the complainant on the articles' Talk pages.Rodhullandemu20:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)(edit conflict)::This IP is editing under 2 IP addresses from the University of Rochester. As he/she is at 4RR and clearly knows the 3RR rule, I'll block both IPs for 31 hours. Page is now protectedDougweller (talk)21:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC)