Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:09, 19 October 2010

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

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

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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.

User:Tintor2 reported by User:68.55.153.254 (Result: stale)

Page: Cloud Strife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Tifa Lockhart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Sephiroth (Final Fantasy) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Barret Wallace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Vincent Valentine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Aerith Gainsborough (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tintor2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Basically, he continually adds the same 1Up.com article back that the consensus agreed to remove.

• 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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cloud Strife

Comments: The majority of the issue can be found in the talk page listed above. Basically, I had found a fantasy casting article being included in several Final Fantasy 7 character articles about who should play them in a live-action movie. I believed them to non-essential to the pages, and in violation of various policies, which were brought up in the talk above. They were put back and I was asked to achieve a consensus before removing them again. Well, the discussion went on for about a week, with all other users who commented agreeing with my side of the discussion, so that makes it a consensus, and I removed them again, but the user has continually put them back up, sometimes trying to reword them to dodge the problem, but the problem is the article itself, not the wording. I've even tried the dispute resolution of asking for a comment from those outside of the issue. I've put them back several times on some of the pages, and when was warned of getting too close to violating 3RR myself, I consulted the user who warned me and he suggested using this page to help resolve the matter. As of reporting this, several of the edits are still up, but I know at least the ones for Cloud, Vincent, and Tifa have been reverted.68.55.153.254 (talk) 01:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As the discussion contined, the anon brought various issues such as crystal ball (the article says it is not happening so it is not), and being a selfpublished source (1UP is owned by UGO Entertainment and is listed as a reliable source by the video games wikiproject, so it's not). Other users brought reasonable issues such as being undue or trivia, and that's why I modified the article's sources to focus in the reception and keeping them in context with all the paragraphs. However, the anon keeps saying that a fan casting is useless and considers that there has been already a consensus although the current form from the sources do not violate any guideline. Moreover, apparently a sock kept removing the sources, while in later hours, the anon removed one from Vincent Valentine alongside another valuable source, that's why I reverted such edits.Tintor2 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Additional comments by Sven Manguard

I was the person that added the 3RR tags to both users in this issue, and it spilled onto my talk page. User:Tintor2 is clearly at fault in this situation. I attempted to explain to him that he was acting against consensus in the matter discussed in the Cloud talk page, and he refused to even acknowledge the possibility that he might be wrong. Whereas my interactions with 68.55.153.254 have shown me that he was acting in good faith and was simply unaware of the finer points of 3RR, my interactions with Tintor2 show me the opposite. Tintor2's refusal to be reasonable in the Cloud talk page, refusal to be reasonable in my talk page, and refusal to stop posting on my talk page when I stated that I did not want the arguments in the matter to be aired in my userspace (I believe the proper place for such arguments is here at EW or the cloud talkpage where the rest of the arguments are.) demonstrate that the user does not understand how to cooperate with others or act in a rational manner in content disputes. He was blocked in June for violating 3RR as well, which leaves him no excuse as to his actions.

• I recommend that 68.55.153.254 not be punished (he has modified his behavior and acted in proper form since the warning, demonstrates remorse, and has no block history)

• I recommend that Tintor2 be blocked for at least two weeks (he has not modified his behavior, demonstrates combativeness, and has a 3RR block history)

Also of note, 68.55.153.254 mentioned on my talk page that Tintor2 has been making the same edits recently. I did not check on this, other than to see that he has been editing FFVII pages, but I explicitly warned Tintor2 that he needed to stop edit warring, both by way of the template, and in my talk page where I said it in plain words to his face. If he is indeed continuing to edit war, this concerns me. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I already accepted my mistake when first adding the sources, but when I told Sven Manguard, he just ignored me and undid my comment from his talk page, not wanting to be involved. I have already stated in the talk page of Cloud Strife about such revision, but the anon keeps calling it "useless". I already explained the reasons for the revert in Cloud and Vincent above.Tintor2 (talk) 02:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, that's not at all true. I undid one of your comments after asking for you to stop making the arguments on my page three times. The third time I explicitly stated that further postings on my page in regards to the issue would be removed. And that is exactly what I did. Your behavior in the issue wore out my patience, and I felt that the only way to get you to stop posting the arguments in my user-space was to remove them. Sven Manguard _Talk 02:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comment If you seriously expect anybody to be sanctioned for edit warring here , you need to provide actual evidence of edit warring in the form of diffs. It is unlikely any admin is going to be willing to wade through all that extended back-and-forth across multiple pages. Looie496 (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Normally I'd agree, but it's literally the most recent changes in every one of the listed articles, just click on history. Do I really need to do 20 diffs for you? You don't have to dig at all. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:29, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, that explanation helps. Even so, I looked at the histories and couldn't make out what is going on -- but I'll convert my decline into a comment so that somebody else may take a look at this. Looie496 (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

TLDR version: The IP is removing fantasy castings by 1UP, per clear consensus at talk:Cloud Strife that there are several issues with having them in the articles. Every time the 1UP castings are removed, Tintor2 puts them back in. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:48, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

As I say again, I agreed consensus was right in the first time. As a result, I revised such sources to leave more in context than most of all the other sentences in reception and avoiding violation of undue and trivia, but the anon keeps saying they still violate such guidelines.Tintor2 (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

To paraphrase one of my favorite quotes, admins "are not like pigs, hunting for truffles buried in" the page history. This is especially true when you give us half a dozen pages. 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 complete diffs. T. Canens (talk) 00:42, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Cloud

#1 #2 #3 #4

• Tifa

#1 #2 #3 #4

• There are also 5 on Sephiroth (Final Fantasy), 3 on Barret Wallace, 5 on Vincent Valentine, and 3 on Aerith Gainsborough. Please do not make me do all of these links.

Sven Manguard _Talk 02:43, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The last I undo was in Vincent Valentine due to the fact the anon also removed another source. In Cloud's, as you see in his history there were some socks editing the article, removing the exact same source. Moreover, the anon kept saying there was consensus and cited guidelines even though the revised sentences didn't break such guidelines. Additionally, the anon first removed these sentences without even discussing. Even the last ones the users posted were the revised ones which the anon kept reverting saying they still violating guidelines although they were more in context that most of the ones used in the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 03:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've added various diffs of examples of this happening, and I see they can probably be put in conjunction with Sven's examples as I think he may have done a few I missed. Also, I've noticed the accusations being put out by Tintor of me using sock puppetry or some such dealing, which I've never done during this whole time, nor has anyone else who was involved in the discussion on the talk page during this incident to my knowledge. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The same could be said for your accusations of edit war when there was no consensus regarding revising the sentences, and you removed them. All of those are included in the last diffs you added.Tintor2 (talk) 03:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It was said or explained to you various times in the talk page that the problem is the article in and of itself, no matter how you word it on the various pages. I'm not going to start arguing with you about this again over here as well. I've given the evidence to the admins that was asked for, and I'm going to let them handle it now. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh my f**king god. Both of you have worn out my patience. Tintor2: Stop with the baiting, you're wrong on consensus, and if the 3RR doesn't get you blocked, the baiting will. IP: Stop taking the damned bait. You're going to be seen as being just as guilty if you keep falling into these petty arguments. I swear that if this continues, I will go to ANI and ask for both of you to be blocked for disruptive editing. I'm sure that had this been any number of other users, that step would have already been taken. Stop. Now. I mean it. Sven Manguard _Talk 03:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Stale Reported user does not appear to have edited any of the articles reported since October 16. T. Canens (talk) 23:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah well. I don't intend on following this anymore anyways. In fact, I really don't enjoy the prospect of them ever showing up anywhere in my user space again. Their ignoring of the whole "keep the battles outside of my user talk" thing left an unpleasant taste in my mouth. Now in a week I won't be able to tell the difference between this IP and any other IP address, my memory isn't that great, but I don't ever want to see Tintor2 in my user space again. He was... unpleasant to deal with. I am so very glad this is now over. And as far as I am concerned, this is now over. Sven Manguard _Talk 06:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay, if it's over then don't comment and learn some wp:civility.Tintor2 (talk) 11:41, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Humaliwalay reported by Codf1977 (talk) (Result: Full protection)

Page: Lebanon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 05:08, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ Included sources of 1991 and 1996")

   05:11, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ arranged sources and added the very latest and reliable one of PEW Research center which was deleted.")

   05:24, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ added Graham and Francke estimates")

   05:28, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ arranging sources")

2. 08:21, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 391195584 by George (talk) - USER GOING ABUSIVE")
3. 10:36, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 391209938 by Elie plus (talk) biased edit reverted")
4. 10:59, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 391217626 by Codf1977 (talk) consensus already acquired for Graham fuller report at RSN refer talk-page")

• Diff of warning: here

—Codf1977 (talk) 11:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Also see this notice, removed from the talk page prior to the last revert. Codf1977 (talk) 11:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Article Fully protected by PhilKnight. Minimac (talk) 15:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:75.198.85.98 , User:75.198.99.134 , User:75.198.78.182 , and User:75.198.90.203 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Kevin Barrett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

1. 75.198.85.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 75.198.99.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 75.198.78.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. 75.198.90.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 15:48, October 16, 2010
2. 19:40, October 16, 2010 (by IP 1)

• 1st revert: 19:17, October 16, 2010 to version 1 as IP 1
• 2nd revert: 22:34, October 16, 2010 to version 2 as IP 2
• 3rd revert: 00:05, October 17, 2010 to version 2 as IP 3
• 4th revert: 01:32, October 17, 2010 to version 2 as IP 3
• 5th revert: 16:24, October 17, 2010 to version 2 as IP 4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 02:08, October 18, 2010 as IP 3

Comments: All edits are adding a "fact" about a living person (apparently the subject's son) sourced only to blog entries. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Page protected The editor is hopping over a pretty wide range, so blocking does not seem to be feasible. However because this is clearly edit-warring in violation of 3RR, I have reverted back to a clean version of the article and semi-protected it for one week. Any suggestions for further steps? Looie496 (talk) 17:40, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Maybe a rangeblock would be more ideal? (I checked this which appeared to have a range of 75.198.64.0/18) Since their contributions are only related to Kevin Barrett. Minimac (talk) 19:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• I see quite a bit more on that range, e.g., 75.198.66.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:LogicKey reported by User:intgr (Result: indef)

Page: TrueCrypt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LogicKey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 2010-10-14T14:37:38
• 2nd revert: 2010-10-14T15:42:51
• 3rd revert: 2010-10-14T17:18:43 (user was warned following this revert)
• 4th revert: 2010-10-17T16:59:43
• 5th revert: 2010-10-17T18:05:54
• 6th revert: 2010-10-17T19:30:48

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Comments:
Single purpose account, disruptive editing. Already banned for 24h for edit warring on the same article (ANEW case by Nuwewsco, ANEW case by me. His edits have been reverted by me, Nuwewsco, Quietbritishjim and Magog the Ogre. We have also tried resolving this on the talk page, but the discussion is always going in circles. When nobody responds in the discussion, LogicKey continues edit warring. -- intgr  20:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see four reverts during a 24 hour period, I recommend the account being blocked indef as a single purpose account used to revert war. Secret 21:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I would put up a block, but I am now involved in this dispute. This user has taken it to the talk page but appears to be incapable or unwilling to listen to other's logic and/or ask for mediation. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely T. Canens (talk) 23:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:24.29.50.31 reported by User:Hasteur (Result: declined)

Page: Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 8) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.29.50.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

IP address has been warned to not change the color on the contestant panel without gathering consensus. Explanation was given in edit summaries and via a hand crafted talk page message. Recommend a 24 hour block to attract the IP's attention that we are serious about the color change.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: hand crafted message,3RR warning just now

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See above message to IP's Talk page and

I am unable to revert as this would put me at 3RR for the day and I have a personal rule that I don't go beyond 2RR as it puts gasoline on the fire. Hasteur (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

You warned the user after he violated 3rr, not before, if he reverts back, then a block should be in order, but as it stands now there shouldn't be any block. Secret 21:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

• Declined User has not made any reverts since being warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 22:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Tbro87 reported by Yworo (talk) (Result: indef)

Page: Electronic cigarette (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Tbro87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. as 173.191.15.114 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
2. as 173.191.15.114
3. Account creation:
4. 01:35, 18 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 391348023 by Yworo (talk)")
5. 01:38, 18 October 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 391348641 by Yworo (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

—Yworo (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Declined User has not edit warred since being warned. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because I reverted the edit right now, he should be blocked indef as a single purpose account sockpuppet. Secret 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. The user's only had one day to make edits, and it's not blatant spam. If you disagree, feel free to take it to WP:ANI; I'm quite OK with being overruled. Magog the Ogre (talk) 02:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The original edit was spam, and even if it's not spam, is still the use of a sockpuppet to add non-notable companies (I checked google pure press releases, one even has 20 g-hits). Secret 02:37, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The user created an account, assuming good faith, in order to not have to edit as an IP anymore (which we encourage). That is not malicious sockpuppetry. And spam issues should be reported to WP:ANI, not this board. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

He was blocked indef for sockpuppetry Secret 00:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Steve kap reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Ten Commandments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 02:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 02:59, 14 October 2010 (edit summary: "//rr, historians generally agree that the exidus story never happened, they are not generally agruing about which moutain...")
2. 19:05, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "Deciding what is and is not "according to the bible" is a matter of POV and debate. But clearly this is a well establish belief, in many religious traditions.")
3. 19:59, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "There has been a bit of debate on what was "written in stone". To say that it was the ED is one this, to say that this is ACCORDING TO THE BIBLE is another.")
4. 20:22, 17 October 2010 (edit summary: "Well, true, there is no debate about the "spoken" part,, what about this...")
5. 02:27, 18 October 2010 (edit summary: "Did we also decide that the text written in stone were THESE Ten C? Did we also decide to rewrite the bible?")

• Diff of warning: here. Also warned (and acknowledged warning) in edit summaries and here.

Comments: On a separate note, this user's behavior is also becoming increasingly hostile. He's received warnings from multiple editors about personal attacks (see his talk page and contrib history). If an admin could provide a bit of a nudge to WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, etc, it might help this user contribute positively in the long run. Thanks.

—Jess_talk|_edits 02:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:02, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Lenschulwitz reported by User:RolandR (Result: protected)

Page: David Wu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lenschulwitz (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Page protected by Ckatz (talk · contribs). I must say, I was minded to block. T. Canens (talk) 12:40, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

User:TheLuca reported by User:AzureFury (Result: protected)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Page: Rape (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheLuca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: There are several edits in which she "undoes partially the edits of another" either by moving information somewhere that makes no sense or outright deleting it. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

We've been working on this article together for a few weeks now. There's some bad blood, but I think she's crossed the line this time. Her comments repeat the same phrases over and over, they mention policy, but never explain how it should be applied, or why it is being applied incorrectly. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 17:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Person was warned after last revert, and stopped revert warring after the warning, recommend no block. Secret 21:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

No one has made any edits to the article after her last revert. She hasn't had the opportunity to revert. Further, a warning is not a prerequisite to blocking. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:00, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A warning is a prerequisite to blocking, unless the person is experienced enough to know the 3rr rules already, which doesn't seem the case with Luca. he could have reverted as it's in the same area you guys kept on reverting, but he didn't. Secret 22:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

From WP:Block, "However, note that warnings are not a prerequisite for blocking." From the talk page, "Your misrepresentation of the Home Office study and your insistence on deleting the Australian study is a breach of WP:NPOV. Add that to your continued edit-warring and you have a very disruptive editor. " She knows what edit warring is. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok that dif changes it all, recommend a block. Secret 22:12, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Page protected Both of you are edit warring here. What you really need to do is seek input from other editors. A one-versus-one dispute where both editors are prepared to revert right up to the limit isn't going anywhere. I have protected the page for 3 days to give you a chance to seek outside input at an appropriate noticeboard or wikiproject, or simply by asking for additional input on the talk page rather than flooding it with your dispute. Looie496 (talk) 22:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

High five for inconsistent enforcement. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 22:53, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree that a high-profile page should be protected just for two editors. Only in cases when it's a mess of editors revert warring each other should the page be protected. Both was revert warring I agree, but AzureFury stopped after three reverts and TheLuca knew he was violating 3rr revert warring. A block would have been better. Secret 23:07, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree full-protection was less than ideal, and frankly a block would have been better. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Have you looked at the page history? For several days the article and talk page are full of nothing but these two editors fighting with each other. Even so, I have no objection to any admin altering the resulting here, if you feel a different result would be more suited to the situation. Looie496 (talk) 01:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

*Sigh* I'm not sure what I saw before, but it's not what I'm seeing on second look. How did that happen? You're right Looie, although I recommend a double-block next time. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

That's cute. I have 2 reverts in the last 24 hours and 3 total in the last week. She has 4 in the last 24 hours, and more than that if you count edits without "Undid" in the summary. But yeah, we're completely equal! Just fire and forget those blocks right? I swear to god admins have no idea what they're doing sometimes. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 04:56, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

With an attitude like that, I sure have no desire to explain any opinion I have. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm heartbroken. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

You do seem to know a "bit" about edit-warring, AzureFury, eh? Her block log is clean, she's not being disruptive right now to warrant a block, and the purpose of blocking her is not punitive anyway, but preventative. Have you seen WP:BOOMERANG, by the way? If you assume good faith, things will probably go better for you next time. Cheers :> Doc talk 05:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Check the talk page before giving me advice on AGF. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm closing this out, per WP:STICK. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Cioccolatina reported by User:Lucas (Result: No action)

Page: Xenia Tchoumitcheva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cioccolatina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: or

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (precedent revert about other topic)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here (25 august, 5 september, 2 october, 19 october) and reasons explained by many users in the talk page.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: explaination on the talk page (last insertion is mine)

Comments:

Hi, I'm sysop on italian wikipedia and I often fight interwiki spam. For more infos on this case, please check the talk page with explaination about the article and the real bith date of the model, as cited in the official "Miss Switzerland" site. The user and the management are pushing on a fake birthdate. --Lucas (talk) 02:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Declined This page is for reporting situations where four or more reverts occur within a 24 hour period, or at least something close to that. Four reverts spread out over two months, covering three unrelated topics, don't even come close. You may have an issue that can be handled at some other site such as ANI, but this does not belong here. Looie496 (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Monkeyassault reported by User:HansSolo54 (Result: )

Page: 1Malaysia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Monkeyassault (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After witnessing the continued edit warring in the past few weeks, I have decided to take action against the individuals who are blatantly responsible. User:Monkeyassault and an individual with various IPs ( eg. User:120.152.102.81, etc ) have been going at it for a couple of weeks.

Here is the evidenceUser:Monkeyassault:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:

Here is the evidence(various IPS):

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

User:Monkeyassault has a history of being against any individual who has raised anything remotely negative against the Malaysian government and his actions has been typically seen in deleting new postings to that effect. User:Monkeyassault has also been rude to new posters and previously been warned to be civil to new posters. Please see the following discussions:

Talk:1Malaysia#Removal_of_.22Response.22_section Talk:1Malaysia#Removal_off_anything_remotely_negative_about_1Malaysia User_talk:Monkeyassault#Unnecessary_Harassment_and_Incivility_against_120.158.230.149

I feel the administrators should take action and protect the 1Malaysia page from further edits and suspend the editors from making any further edits from the time being. HansSolo54 (talk) 17:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Monkeyassault needs a block and the page semi-protected while techincally there's no 3rr, the edit warring is extreme in this situation. Secret 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably "involved" so I'm not going to decide this. I don't think Monkeyassault should be blocked. There is no 3RR violation, he hasn't been warned to slow down the reverts generally, and it's clear that he is trying to stop rampant anti-government POV pushing by anonymous editors (which of course isn't a justification for edit-warring, but is relevant to whether he is blocked without warning for a non-3RR violation). And you'll see that he has engaged on the talk page; the IPs have not. I would suggest that Monkeyassault ask for a third opinion or seek some other form of dispute resolution. Also, the reporter looks to me to be a sock of User:Roman888. This is classic Roman888 behaviour. A comprehensive 3RR report on the 4th edit, with a good knowledge of the history of the reported editor? --Mkativerata (talk) 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, yea but comments like "reverting vandalism" even though it's not, is a clear indication of edit warring, I thought Monkeyassault was reverting sourced criticism when in fact it was WP:COATRACK junk, sorry about that. I thought HansSolo54 was one of the IPs originally, yea he needs a checkuser. Secret 19:32, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Good point - I've left him a note about labelling edits as vandalism. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:46, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Hammer of Habsburg reported by User:Taivo (Result:48 hours )

Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hammer of Habsburg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Croatian language is under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBMAC

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User:Hammer of Habsburg has now violated 1RR again after he was blocked here yesterday for the same thing. --Taivo (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours by Daniel Case. Secret 18:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! reported by User:snowded (Result:one month )

Page: ] 
User being reported: ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: version

• Original edit
• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This edit has a long history of edit waring and disruptive behaviour (and had a similar pattern with a previous user name). S/he goes quiet for a period then engages with an article edit warring, inserting multiple disruptive comments on the talk page etc. etc. --Snowded 19:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

A long block should be recommended. Blantant disregard to 3rr policies and was blocked for a month twice before. Secret 19:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a month by SarekOfVulcan Secret 19:42, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, I was about to say that before you editconflicted me. :-)

User:99.92.130.150 reported by User:Geoff B (Result: )

Page: Let Me In (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.92.130.150 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: - IP points other users to talk page but does not take part himself.

• Another revert after 3RR warning: . decltype (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

User:Prunesqualer reported by User:Jiujitsuguy

Page: Gaza war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prunesqualer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gaza war is under the 1RR restrictions of WP:ARBPIA

• 1st revert:

• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

User: Prunesqualer has now violated 1RR by inserting material that had been previously deleted and reinserting that material for a second time. He was also issued a warning and given a chance to self-revert but chose to ignore it--Jiujitsuguy (talk) 21:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring