Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring

< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by NJA (talk | contribs) at 08:35, 27 January 2010 (→User:Haskanik reported by User: Alan Cox (Result: ): 31h). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 08:35, 27 January 2010 by NJA (talk | contribs) (→User:Haskanik reported by User: Alan Cox (Result: ): 31h)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

v t e Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles, content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards

Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts

Update this page

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

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.

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

Click here to create a new report

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
349	350	351	352	353	354	355	356	357	358
359	360	361	362	363	364	365	366	367	368
Incidents (archives, search)
1157	1158	1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166
1167	1168	1169	1170	1171	1172	1173	1174	1175	1176
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
482	483	484	485	486	487	488	489	490	491
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
328	329	330	331	332	333	334	335	336	337
338	339	340	341	342	343	344	345	346	347
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Anonywiki reported by User:Tony Sidaway (Result: blocked by User:Vsmith)

1st revert: 20:01, 29 December 2009
2nd revert: 18:16, 30 December 2009, note promise to edit war on this.
3rd revert: 19:16, 31 December 2009
4th revert: 20:30, 31 December 2009
5th revert: 22:36, 31 December 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Diff shows warnings at 20:33 and 21:04, 31 December, 2009)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Tonyesparsa reported by User:Marty Rockatansky (Result: Indef)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I don't really know what's his problem, just keeps reverting the same thing over and over again. I asked him once and no response. Marty Rockatansky (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Please notify User:Tonyesparsa of the 3RR rule, e.g. with a {{uw-3rr}} warning. You've made no effort to discuss this with him, and you've left nothing on the article's talk page. The two of you are disputing the venue and opponent of a future match, to be held in March 2010, and neither of you has provided any reference for your knowledge. Per WP:CRYSTAL it seems doubtful that a future match should be mentioned at all, unless widely discussed. (If so you should easily be able to find a reference). Note that you've made as many reverts as he has, so if he were blocked due to this report, you probably would be too. EdJohnston (talk) 04:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added the reference. According to WP:MMA future events are ok to add after being officially announced. Its not like he disputes the opponent, the name he adds there's no fighter by that name. i got about 10,000 edits here on kickboxing and martial arts.Marty Rockatansky (talk) 11:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Update - It seems there is no boxer named Jeffrey Helfer. Tonesparsa did not reply to my challenge on that subject, and has continued to revert the article to show Jeffrey Helfer as the March 2010 opponent of John Wayne Parr. This editor had previously created the unsourced article Jeffrey Helfer which looks to me to be a hoax, and was speedied by another admin as a G3 (blatant and obvious misinformation). I'm blocking Tonyesparsa indef as a vandal-only account. EdJohnston (talk) 18:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thx for adding a temp protection, seems like the guy doesnt wanna give upMarty Rockatansky (talk) 05:45, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Christina Mendez reported by User:XLR8TION (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Talk

User is unexperienced editor. Creates wikilinks using full web address postings. Uses copyright photos without permission. Reverts constructive edits. Refuses to compromise or abide by site guidelines. Refuses to reference material. I have added sources and he has removed them. He has been warned by others about photos and unconstructive edits. --XLR8TION (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - Warned. I assume that the target of this complaint is the article subject, since they requested a rename of Carlos5053 -> Christina Mendez back in October 2008, and the rename was supposedly granted, but it seems not to have worked. This may have caused some of the warning messages about the edit war to go to the wrong place. The reverts that were submitted as part of this report are shown as the edits of User:Carlos5053, who should not exist any more if the rename had worked. I will ask at WP:Bureaucrat's noticeboard how to fix this, and meanwhile the 3RR case is closed as Warned. EdJohnston (talk) 19:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A bureaucrat has indicated that the renaming of Carlos5053 was correctly done, but he is editing using a *new* Carlos5053 account, independent of the original one. Until we get his or her attention we will probably have to leave edit warring reminders at *both* User talk:Carlos5053 and User talk:Christina Mendez. And ask them to stop using the redundant User:Carlos5053 account. EdJohnston (talk) 22:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User:59.101.146.142 reported by User:yoganate79 (Result: Decline)

User being reported Userlinks:User:59.101.146.142

User keeps making unconstructive edits to War of 1812 section article listed above without proper citations. After 4 reverts, the user keeps changing it back to the initial and first edit which the user made. Yoganate79 (talk) 03:22, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits are constructive improvements to the text, partly for style and balance, and including the addition of relevant facts. User:yoganate79 keeps reverting me for no specific reason, even though what I've added is uncontroversial and not subject to wide variations of interpretation, so specific references shouldn't be required, but can easily be added if he wants to query specific changes. I asked him to take it to the talk page repeatedly so he can make specific objections clear, but he won't, presumably because he can't substantiate his claims. He is very antagonistic and misclassifies what I'm doing as vandalism and seems to be abusing procedure to try to intimidate me, and I wish to make a counter complaint about him, but I'm not sure about the correct procedure. Can somebody please assist? Help me please. 59.101.146.142 (talk) 03:38, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Independent Opinion - This is a simple content dispute, meant to go to the talk page of the article. This "3RR" is clearly not vandalism, and neither the new entry nor the original version is cited at all. Doesn't belong on this board; should be worked out on talk page... Doc9871 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, an editor reporting another editor must inform on the user's talk page that the report was made, and this doesn't seem to have been done here... Doc9871 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Declined Not a clear violation of 3RR or edit warring generally in my opinion. Essentially there was a minor content dispute, and instead of using the talk pages both editors went along and continued to misuse the undo function. Parties advised to utilise talk pages rather than revert continually in the future to avoid escalation minor disputes. NJA (t/c) 13:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Tom Reedy reported by User:Ssilvers (Result: Final warnings)

More reverts:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I've never made a 3rr report before, so please let me know if I need to amend this. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned Both User:Tom Reedy and User:Smatprt warned to stop. Any further reverting by either should result in an edit warring block, particularly for the latter user as they should know better (several 3RR blocks). NJA (t/c) 13:16, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cexycy reported by User:Rapido (Result: Warned)

Previous version reverted to:

Slow edit war see:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Most of the information added by Cexycy is original research, opinion/editorialising, and unnecessary intricate details. I don't think it's appropriate for the article. I verified some details and left them in, but removed much of the remainder, however nonetheless the whole thing gets reverted back. Tried discussing on the talk page, however Cexycy seems to be upset about me on an unrelated matter and reverts regardless.

Rapido (talk) 22:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Warned User warned on this issue. If they ignore my advice and continue to revert then re-report and cite this close case. NJA (t/c) 13:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Goethean reported by User: Chutesandladders (Result: 24h)

Previous version reverted to:

00:33, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 337902649 by 76.217.119.250 (talk)")
00:41, 15 January 2010 (edit summary: "move news item from intro")
15:47, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "undo per WP:DENY")
15:53, 18 January 2010 (edit summary: "dummy edit: my last edit removed text per WP:BLP which was cited soley to a NYT editor's note (primary source), an op-ed piece, and blog entries. falls under WP:OR")
15:10, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339715788 by Tubestennovel (talk) no news stories = no story. rm text cited to blogs and correction BLP")
22:30, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339801306 by Chutesandladders (talk)")
22:49, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339809342 by Chutesandladders (talk)")

—Chutesandladders (talk) 23:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Both editors blocked – for a period of hours NJA (t/c) 13:37, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Yorkshirian reported by User:RepublicanJacobite (Result: Stale)

Previous version reverted to: , not all reverts are to this version so details are in full in the comments section

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Editor has been blocked before for edit warring, including an arbitration finding of fact that they have edit warred.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I'm not involved in the edit war, unless you count reverting the apparently erroneous removal of a request for a quotation as "edit warring".

Comments:

Revert #1 is a revert of this series of edits, which removed apparently non-policy compliant information about Dewsbury. Revert #2 is adding back "frontpage headlines of Masked mob stone police followed in the Mail on Sunday" which is a revert of this edit which removed "frontpage headlines of Masked mob stone police in The Mail followed". Revert #3 is an obvious revert of this edit. Revert #4 is a revert of this edit and this edit. Revert #5 is adding back the term "intransigent" removed in this edit. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Stale NJA (t/c) 10:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Seoulight reported by User:Seb az86556 (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Seoulight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

3RR warning: User talk:Seoulight (multiple)

Comments:

Somebody look at this (history of all articles above), I don't even know how to file this mess correctly. The guy just keeps going... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked NJA (t/c) 13:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Hubschrauber729 reported by User:Sherlock4000 (Result: Restriction)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has a history of deleting the "Italian-Argentine" category from hundreds of articles, and has been previously advised not to do so by Alexf (here), so this has been discussed with Hubschrauber ad nauseum. User claims to care about "unsupported categories," but only attacks those in this group, while pushing an unsupported category on Michael Klukowski. All the articles he objects to being categorized as Italian-Argentine have unquestionably Italian surnames. Many are also cited as such, though this is silly because, short of a blood test, none of the ethnicity claims on any of the thousands of bios in Misplaced Pages can be proven. This is a matter of patent fact, and common sense. This is more than I can say about Hubschrauber's contention that Michael Klukowski is Austrian, and with no sources or consensus (just like with this problem). He was, by the way, overriden, and has attempted pettifogging articles to death with others on Misplaced Pages, such as the Turkish community of editors.

Obviously, this is an inconsequesntial issue, and I hate wasting time on this. It's gotten so that my "Wikitime" has been pissed away on this, instead of on translating and copyediting articles or adding new ones–my preferred activities on Misplaced Pages. I am only trying to nip this one in the bud, becuase my experience has been that, if you let it slide, the disruptions snowball. If you doubt this, ask Marek69, to whom I alerted of a serial disruptive user (Marek had him banned). As with anything, some people only log on to bother others for kicks.

Thanks for your trouble, Sherlock4000 (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed action; please comment - I perceive there have been a vast number of reverts about Italian surnames across a range of articles. (Likely to be at least 50 articles per wikistalk). It appears that Hubschrauber729, Sherlock4000 and 76.91.189.163 are the main participants in the war. The IP just mentioned was blocked for 31 hours per an ANI thread. After his block expired, the IP resumed adding the categories, by systematically undoing Hubschrauber729's edits. This edit war ought to stop. One possibility is an editing restriction stopping these three editors from changing any Italian surname categories in either direction for 90 days, unless a consensus is found. I ask for comments by other editors on this plan. Would especially be interested to know if other admins think it's a good idea. EdJohnston (talk) 03:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Heck, I'm no admin, but I think it's a great idea! Temporary "topic-specific" bans have a way of quelling edit wars (at least until the 90 days are up, right?) Doc9871 (talk) 04:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I am removing categories from articles that do not source their Italian heritage. The category cannont be added just because a name sounds Italian. That does not prove anything. I have asked Sherlock why he keeps adding these unsourced categories, I get no response other than a 3RR warning on my page. I have not removed the category from articles which Italian heritage is sourced (I did from one article, it was a mistake). I am guilty of edit warring, but nothing else. I have nothing against Italian people, as may be perceived, you can see I have also removed categories such as "Argentines of Spanish descent" and "....German descent". I aslo disagree with the way Sherlock is going about this. His edit summaries say "Category removed without consensus". What does that mean? Do editors need consensus before removing unsourced, and possibly untrue additions? Hubschrauber729 (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Hubschrauber729 already agreed to stop warring. I would request 76.91.189.163 and Sherlock4000 to (i) provide reliable sources for their claims; (ii) immediately stop adding categories or/and unreferenced information on this topic "Italian-Argentine" heritage to mainframe articles. Materialscientist (talk) 04:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Since the vandal in question has agreed to stop (I see he snuck in a deletion on the Sergio Massa artcle), the idea sounds reasonable and fair, in the interest of being able to spend more time editing and less time dealing with disruptions. The categories stay as they are, and any future additions need sources: a standard which should be applied to all bios, not just those of people from Argentina.

This, by the way, is why I consider Hubschrauber a vandal: he devotes inordinate amounts of time attacking Argentine-related articles, when it's no secret that the nationality of bios on Misplaced Pages with unreferenced claims (including those of descent) run the gamut. A quick glance at Mexican, Brazilian, and Chilean bios, as well as others, will show that many of those suffer from the same problem (categories inferred from surnames, alone, not to mention embellishments). That this user focuses all his energies on one nationality, and that he was such a pest about adding an Austrian category to the Michael Klukowski article without sources (or even, as with my edits, a good reason) is therefore proof positive of malice.

His claims of impartiality are likewise just more chicanery. A case in point, among others similar, is his deletion of referenced material on the bio I wrote on late tango composer Juan de Dios Filiberto. The user deleted the Italian-Argentine category, of course, and then quietly pulled out half a sentence from the text (you read right, half, and all referenced): the half that states his father was Italian, while graciously leaving the half about his Spanish mother. Good to see chivalry still exists!

I've had my disputes on Misplaced Pages with others, sure, but I've never started them. By comprarison, Hubschrauber has decided to pick these stupid fights by selectively attacking articles on grounds that fly in the face of common sense (whatever happened to that, right?). That and the many other inane disputes he took up with others is what convinced me that bad faith lurked behind the user's protestations of "unverifiable" this and that. A common enough tale on Misplaced Pages, as you know.

So, thanks again for your time and trounle. God knows we were all a little happier before this individual declared these wars (as if we didn;t have enough of those in the world).

Take care everyone, Sherlock4000 (talk) 12:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - All three parties are restricted for one month from adding or removing ethnic categories on articles that were placed solely due to the person's surname. Sherlock4000 is reminded not to attack other editors on noticeboards. The IP is warned that a sanction for abuse of multiple accounts may be applied if he participates in any more edit wars. This restriction expires early if an a consensus is reached in some appropriate forum, and it can be appealed at WP:AN. I am glad that some assurances have been made above, which if they are followed, may mean that these editors have already agreed to do what the restriction is calling for. Admins should comment further if they would prefer a different result. EdJohnston (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Lordvolton reported by LotLE×talk (Result: 24h)

Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

22:43, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ added section relating to the ethical issues regarding Frank's relationship with a Fannie Mae executive.")
22:45, 24 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Personal life */ minor grammatical fix.")
04:55, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ reverted back to original. The material is relevant -- please go to the discussion section if you want to debate the merits.")
14:51, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ SEE DISCUSSION BEFORE REVERTING WITHOUT DISCUSSION. THIS IS MY SECOND REQUEST.")
15:10, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339933519 by Ohnoitsjamie (talk)See discussion section. Please read edit histories.")
15:25, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "added two additional cites.")
15:49, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac */ added 5th cite.")
15:51, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Minor grammatical fix.")
17:36, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339953466 by Abrazame (talk)See my comments in the discussion section.")

User was warned at:

; and at

Additional reversions followed, including after user responded (below) to this report.

—

Contentious edit warring to insert material in probably violation of WP:BLP. Poorly worded and long addition making claims of corruption against a political figure, single sourced to an editorial. In any case, Lordvolton restores the material against the removal up it by numerous editors. LotLE×talk 23:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Material similar to that inserted by Lordvolton was in the article back last summer, and was removed after detailed discussion on the article talk page. I don't think the wording was ever example the same, so that probably doesn't per se count as a reversion the first time LV inserted this new round of WP:SOAPBOXing. LotLE×talk 23:10, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Lulu has made reverts without joining our discussion on the talk page -- I've invited Lulu to participate (see my revert notes and the discussion page). Unilateral reverts absent any dialogue after repeated attempts to begin a discussion are evidence of POV editing in my opinion. Lordvolton (talk) 23:13, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Despite my best efforts to create a dialogue an "anonymous" editor just reverted again. The ip address is 149.77.52.78 I've left a note on Lulu's page asking them to please participate in the dialogue which doesn't seem to be an option being embraced by the editors.

Please advise. =-)

Lordvolton (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, accusing each other of POV violations isn't going to make anyone any happier. I think it's safe to say that how to treat Barney Frank's relationship with a bank executive affects the POV of the article, whether that's what people are setting out to do or not. That's a content question for the article talk page. I think there are four reverts in there but I'm not sure and I don't think it's really worth trying to figure it out if everyone's okay now. Since it's too late to self-revert I'd suggest you pledge not to make further reverts today and be more careful in the future, that way nobody has to get blocked. Other editors seem to be edit warring too, they just haven't crossed 3RR. Everyone really needs to go to the talk page on this and not worry about which is the "right version" for now, although I think it's been talked about before. Hope this helps. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

There are six actual reverts by Lordvolton in there, and s/he has given no indication of any willingness to stop edit warring at any point. Nor, FWIW, any willingness to respect WP:BLP. An appropriate sanction is the only way to convince the editor that this is not appropriate editing behavior. Given the egregiousness of the behavior, I think the sanction should be rather longer than shorter. LotLE×talk 00:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours for 3RR violation. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad block. Punitive and uncivil. There was no ongoing issue as the material was already reverted several hours prior and there was no indication that further reversions would be forthcoming. There was also no warning or collegial discussion. Please try to be more cooperative in the future Ed. Also, it would be helpful if you made suggestions for on how to resolve issues raised by editors working in good faith, instead of just ignoring comments and pushing buttons. Pretty disappointing. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:King of Mercia reported by CTJF83 chat (Result: No action)

Three-revert rule violation on

Diffs are listed from oldest to newest, dates are in UTC

04:07, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Just quoting what Bushell has said.")
04:12, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 339860452 by Frickative (talk)")
23:01, 25 January 2010 (edit summary: "/* Reception */")
00:28, 26 January 2010 (edit summary: "Reverted unnecessary criticism of character, as discussed earlier.")

Diff of warning: here

—CTJF83 chat 02:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Result - No action. There have been no reverts in the last 24 hours, and there is evidence of a compromise on the Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, it took 24 hours for an admin to get to this, ridiculous. CTJF83 chat 05:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:78.3.252.238 reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: Blocked)

Previous version reverted to:

Still ongoing

Then another day or so's worth of edits from other IPs.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:Way too many to list comprehensively. This has been going on for a while now, from multiple IPs. This IP has been the most recent.
Page probably also should get some page protection, at least temporarially. I won't file a separate report from that, but I'll let the deciding admin make that call. Shadowjams (talk) 09:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The revert war there was indeed over top. Some kind of silly nationalism, claiming that a sportsman belongs to some entity (which is not a country) .. Semiprotected the article for a week, but not sure this will stop the parties, thus better watch this and other relevant articles. Materialscientist (talk) 09:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Already blocked NJA (t/c) 10:56, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:67.249.106.3 reported by User:Favonian (Result: Blocked)

User being reported: Zebyoolar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert:
2nd revert:
3rd revert:
4th revert:
5th revert:
6th revert:
7th revert:
8th revert:
9th revert:
10th revert:
11th revert:
12th revert:
13th revert:
14th revert:
15th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (also )

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Keeps re-adding the same essay about the pronunciation of 2010 even though several editors have noted that it is way to long for this article. There are in fact many more reverts than the four listed above. Favonian (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: While this report was being created, I compiled over a dozen revert diffs from the reported user, and I've gone ahead and added the remainder of them to the initial four. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Note: It would seem that the IP has acquired a name: Zebyoolar (talk · contribs). Favonian (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Just came here to post that. Admin intervention ASAP would be helpful. — CIS | stalk) 20:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

See for continued inclusion of edits. ttonyb (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours At least 27 reverts in just a few hours through the IP and the account, despite clear opposition to the text from multiple editors. --Ckatz_spy 21:32, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Haskanik reported by User: Alan Cox (Result: 31h)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338870224

1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=338870224
2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340227960
3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340229366
4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Midland_Metro&oldid=340230698

Unfortunately this is a mass revert of every change anyone or thing (even robots) make to the users version of the page (which itself has serious bias problems and contains probably defamatory claims).

The reverts affected material added by Alan Cox only, not other contributors. Please check the history. Haskanik (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually untrue - you reverted corrections from bots too (you may not have intended to but you did Alan Cox (talk) 00:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Haskanik&oldid=340234187

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Tried discussion, generated a long long set of threads, user continuously reverts to his own personal version. Not attached a diff therefore as it covers many issues (including one or two where the other editor had a point and I fixed them but even while I was fixing them he kept reverting all the changes - including reverting to old spelling errors while complaining about new ones !

PS: I'd be happy for a neutral third point of view to also review the changes being made and look for a constructive process.

Alan Cox (talk) 23:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I've provided a detailed analysis of some of the changes made by Mr Cox on the Talk page. Note that significant references have been removed by him. Haskanik (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to work with you if you would stop reverting the page and would provide references to the views espoused. I note you've just stopped reverting it all blindly again however including undisputable typo fixes, and introducing unreferenced probably defamatory statements. Can we now move to discussion and a 3rd opinion ?. Alan Cox (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this the Alan Cox, i.e. the one who works on the Linux kernel? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No. That would be AlanCox (talk · contribs) - as previously disclosed - Alison 07:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Consistent reverts by Haskanik to a version that removes cited facts and re-adds obvious typos is vandalism, that should be rightfully reverted. NJA (t/c) 08:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Simpleterms reported by Tbsdy (Result: )

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Editor has been asked a number of times on their talk page and in the edit history to please discuss his changes to the David Tweed article on the talk page. Both myself, Lankiveil and Gillyweed have posted to the talk page asking what the issue is, but editor has not responded. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) 06:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from Toddst1: It appears that the reporting admin, Tbsdy has violated WP:EW on that page too:

While not a 3RR violation the admin is clearly engaged in an inappropriate edit war. Note that those are not admin actions. Toddst1 (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Categories: