Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandstein (talk | contribs) at 18:11, 14 April 2011 (→User:Andrewedwardjudd reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: ): 72h). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:24.1.69.247 reported by User:Rndomuser (Result: Semi)

Page: IPad 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.1.69.247 (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:

This user has been warned multiple times, but seems to ignore/not respond to anything. Temporary semi-protection of the article (requested by me) didn't deter his/her deliberate destructive actions.

Result: Semiprotected one month. See a complaint at ANI about an IP repeatedly adding an unsourced item about light leakage in the iPad2. The choice was between semiprotecting for a bit or issuing a long enough block to the IP. No IP who has added any new content since 1 April has participated on the article's talk page. The inconvenience to the IPs is necessary to stop the problem of unsourced material being re-added constantly. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Danjel reported by User:110.174.23.139 (Result: No violation)

Page: Top Ryde City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danjel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: N/A

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have asked user Danger(Moderator?) to assist. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

As a sign of good faith for someone who clearly doesn't understand, I've tried to fix up some of the above for "110.174.23.139".

Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR...

On other issues, the IP reporting this is a highly WP:TENDENTIOUS editor. I have repeatedly tried to involve him/her in improving the article at hand, but s/he steadfastly holds to the content that he prefers. S/he engages in abuse and ad hominem, visible on the talk page. S/he has previously had issues with WP:NPOV, WP:3RR and WP:NPA at this article. Quite clearly, s/he has an axe to grind in regards to the centre and acts tendentiously towards the article.

The content that s/he is trying to insert has problems with its wording and this has been pointed out. Further, I would argue that it's not noteworthy enough to warrant inclusion on the article, as it has no bearing to the operation of the centre, merely to the financial solvency of the corporation running the centre (but we haven't even got to that point yet). -danjel (talk to me) 08:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Any previous lack of NPOV has been resolved with the assistance of more experienced editors. The information I am adding is not emotive and reflects informative content. The user danjel insists on removing my edits without any discussion. user danjel removes Bold content without discussion. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 08:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

That you engage in personal attacks to some degree in almost every single one of your contributions (], ] and ]) to the talk page suggest that you are being emotive here.

I assume that you're saying the word "Bold" here in reference to WP:BOLD. Well... The process is (1) be bold and add content, which you did; (2) the content is reverted, which I did, with reasons given; (3) DISCUSSION. We're at the discussion phase at the moment, and you haven't taken into account my criticisms of your tendentious actions there and that I have a problem with the wording of your content. -danjel (talk to me) 08:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Nonsense. My edit is concise, has a NPOV, is relevant and has a cited reference. You have made no mention in the discusssion of exactly what bothers you with the wording - Receivers called in as Top Ryde Shopping Centre runs up $700m debt six months after opening. You only say it is not neutral or lacks relevence but you do not give any reasons to support you contention. In any case this not an appropriate place for extended discussion you could have easily chosen to talk on the article discussion page. I am making this report because I believe you are edit warring. 110.174.23.139 (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Your edit is concise to the point of being pointless for inclusion. A citation does not make it a good edit, see WP:TRIVIA and WP:NOTNEWS.

Your insistence on your edit the way you want it is evidence of acting tendentiously, several of your edits include personal attacks and your reversions go unaccompanied by collaboration. That's the definition of edit warring.

But you're absolutely right. This isn't the place for extended discussion. So, unless there are questions from anyone else... -danjel (talk to me) 09:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:110.174.23.139 reported by User:Danjel (Result: 48h)

Page: Top Ryde City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 110.174.23.139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: (this time adding just the article heading???)
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Link to attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Top_Ryde_City#Financial_Trouble with involvement by myself and User:Worm That Turned

Comments:

The IP has previously been blocked for edit warring at this same article. This latest attempt, together with the ad hominem against me throughout the talk page shows that s/he is editting from a POV and WP:TENDENTIOUSly adding content to the article that presents Top Ryde City in a negative light.

See also the report against me made above. -danjel (talk to me) 11:38, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours

User:Lisa reported by User:RolandR (Result: 48h)

Page: Israel and the apartheid analogy (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:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Per WP:ARBPIA, this article is subject to a 1RR restriction.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Unnecessary; user has already been warned about the 1RR restriction, and the article's edit page has a lerge header reminding editors of this restriction.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The diff of the "attempt to resolve dispute" (which is nothing of the sort) is after RolandR himself reverted my edit. Note, please, that the first diff which RolandR claims to have been a revert is nothing of the sort, but merely an edit. RolandR himself is violating WP:NPOV by insisting on using "Arab citizens of Israel" to describe people who describe themselves (in direct quotes cited within the section in question) as Israeli Arabs. RolandR claims that this is a NPOV descriptor, which is clearly not the case. I would like to request that RolandR, and not I, be cautioned for edit warring. A look at his posting history will reveal a long standing bias. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

My editing of this article cannot possibly be considered edit-warring. I mmade an original edit, introducing new material, at 10.14 on 11 April, and reverted to that once, at 15.51 on 12 April. Meanwhile, Lisa reverted twice within two hours, at 14.50 and 16.48 on 12 April. Nor is it true that I discussed this on the talk page only after I reverted Lisa's revert. In fact, my talk comment was at 15.47, before my revert. The rest of Lisa's comments above are not relevant to this report. RolandR (talk) 18:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours I find Lisa's claim that the first revert reported is "merely an edit" to be without merit. That particular heading had already been going back and forth between two different versions over the prior day, the last being just 3 edits prior to Lisa's first reported revert. Lisa's first reported revert was indeed a revert. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:98.113.152.93 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result:48h)

Page: Tempo (chess) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.113.152.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 14:47 10 Apr 2011: User is warned about unconstructive edits on Check (chess): http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:98.113.152.93&oldid=423342818
• 5:21 11 Apr 2011: User is admonitioned about apparent lack of chess knowledge by three different editors.
• 1st revert: 5:32 11 Apr 2011 User reinserts some material that was just reverted by Quale.
• 2nd revert: 4:52 12 Apr 2011 Reverts Quale's edit with comment, "Why?"
• 3rd revert: 5:12 12 Apr 2011 Reverts Bubba73's revert AGAIN with comment, "Face it, kings always stay on the board in chess."
• 5:13 12 Apr 2011: User is warned about nonconstructive edits to both the Tempo and Promotion (chess) articles.
• 5:59 12 Apr 2011: User is warned about 3RR
• 4th revert: 8:18 12 Apr 2011 Reverts Quale's revert with comment, "Quale, you suck. 3RR only applies when the info is a hoax."
• 8:32 12 Apr 2011: User takes argument to the WP:Help Desk to seek intervention
• 8:55 12 Apr 2011: User is informed that 3RR doesn't only apply to hoaxes; is warned again regarding 3RR.

Only after the war had passed a total of 6 reverts by both sides did Bubba73 take it to the talk page: other discussion had been relegated entirely to the edit comments.

Comments:

The same sort of warring involving the same players has been going on over at Castling.

So, basically, what we have in the Tempo article is:

• Two or more editors (Bubba73 and Quale) who have had a consensus on the article since 12 Dec 2010
• An IP address editor (98.113.152.93) who keeps introducing material against consensus
• Another editor (212.68.15.66) who came by, saw the brouhaha, and made another revert
• A fourth editor (Jsharpminor) who came by, saw the brouhaha, and templated three people for excessive reversion and 3RR,
• An article that now stands correct by consensus.

It seems that the obvious thing, then, is to leave the article the way it is. However, according to User:98.113.152.93's pattern, he is active from about 4:00 server time to about 10:00 server time. I am concerned that tomorrow we'll have another repeat.

In my unprofessional opinion, a simple look at User talk:98.113.152.93 merits at least a short block for

• violating consensus,
• edit warring,
• introducing factual errors against the warnings of others, and
• name-calling and other aggressive behaviour.

I chose to stay completely out of this edit war. The only contributions you'll find from me are on usertalk pages and the Tempo article's talk page.

Jsharpminor (talk) 17:10, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by JamesBWatson -- Jsharpminor (talk) 18:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Miacek reported by User:Hilderich (Result: filer blocked)

Page: A Word to the People (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Miacek (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:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hilderich (talk • contribs)

Check this thread. It's yet another sock puppet of the troll Dodo19, who has been stalking me for months, always here with the sole aim of causing disruption. Note that reverting vandalism (I removed deliberate factual errors, introduced by this sock puppeteer's account) is not covered by 3RR. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 18:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

What vandalism?--Hilderich (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely Blocked by Favonian (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) as a sock of Dodo19 (talk · contribs). Elockid 22:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Sugar-Baby-Love and User:70.90.34.77 reported by User:Jsharpminor (Result: Protected)

Page: The Daily Caller (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sugar-Baby-Love (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 70.90.34.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Edit war currenlty ongoing.

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Daily_Caller&action=historysubmit&diff=423747954&oldid=423747368
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=prev&oldid=423746386
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=prev&oldid=423744974
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=prev&oldid=423743667

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Diffs of the IP:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th diff to establish that both are in violation

Both have been properly warned and continued reverting. Sugar-Baby-Love claims it is clear vandalism and exempt from 3RR, does not seem clear to me. Monty₈₄₅ 21:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Diffs of warnings:

Sugar-Baby-Love —

70.90.34.77 —

Added diffs of warnings. Monty₈₄₅ 21:17, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Saying "Both have been properly warned and continued reverting" is not correct. My concern was to bring in administrator attention to this vandal when I realized when he or she would not just give up, and now that administrators have their eagle eye on him I made it clear that I'm giving up on the page (and not editing there further). I'm not interested in editing it! I just detest vandalism. Anyways, good luck catching all of his or her socks! Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

You need to re-read WP:VANDAL. The edits you were reverting would not qualify.   Will Beback  talk  22:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Turning "political journalism" into "yellow journalism" (unsourced) is as clear as turning "concert pianist" into "concert penis". It's textbook vandalism. Not to mention the addition of (again unsourced) commentary about the websites content being paid by neo-cons who have Jewish paranoia.

Also, claiming that you are Misplaced Pages editing for pay is totally unacceptable vandalism.

Besides, how on earth can someone use so many Misplaced Pages editing accounts without censure? Vandal behavior to a T. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Not to pile on things, but "Edit war currenlty ongoing" is also incorrect (as well as misspelled). Now that administrators can deep six the socks there's no further conflict on the substance. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Did you re-read WP:VANDAL?   Will Beback  talk  22:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Turning "political journalism" into "yellow journalism" (like turning "concert pianist" into "concert penis") seems pretty darn clear as vandalism. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you avoid using "vandalism reverting" as an excuse for going over the 3RR limit in the future because you do not appear to understand the Misplaced Pages definition of the term. Please note the following: "Even if misguided, willfully against consensus, or disruptive, any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism. Edit warring over content is not vandalism. Careful consideration may be required to differentiate between edits that are beneficial, detrimental but well-intentioned, and vandalizing. Upon their discovery, revert clearly vandalizing edits. Then warn the vandalizing editor. Notify administrators of vandalizing users who persist despite warnings, and administrators should intervene to protect content and prevent further disruption by blocking such users from editing. When warranted, accounts whose main or only use is obvious vandalism or other forbidden activity may be blocked even without warning."   Will Beback  talk  23:02, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Rather than edit warring, if you think there's repetitive vandalism then please report it to Misplaced Pages:Administrator intervention against vandalism.

Erm, why do you quote policies to me that I was following (and understand clearly well)? Vandalism is not edit warring over content. Vandalism is turning "political journalism" into "yellow journalism" (unsourced) or turning "concert pianist" into "concert penis". Such obvious vandalism is not subject to the 3RR rule. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 03:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, I blocked the IP for this edit warring, but also because it had bled over into sockpuppetry a bit. — HelloAnnyong 02:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected by Dabomb87. Minima© (talk) 06:02, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The block failed. The same editor is averting the block by editing using an alternative account, this one. See this edit. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

User:128.135.96.216 reported by User:RaseaC (Result: blocked, semi-protected)

Page: Uday Hussein (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 128.135.96.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Uday_Hussein&oldid=421446781

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User appears to be using multiple IPs: 128.135.96.216, 99.23.145.55, 128.135.96.51

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Article semi-protected for 3 days to prevent further disruption from other IP addresses. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

In regards to http://en.wikipedia.org/Mark_Holland and the link removed by Airplaneman and then his protecting the page. I would beg to differ with his decision. The link in question has repeatedly been removed by staffers in MH's office since it contains information that he does not want the public to have access to. This is honest information aimed at Canadians particularly those in his riding. It is not an abuse of the page since it is only a link at the end of the article. Not to mention I am the one that requested the page be protected WITH that link included. That is particularly important at this point in time since we do have an election upcoming as well. Wiki is known for having all good info.. not selective info only.. and since the link in question is good and valid honest information it should be included in that article and protected from removal. Not the other way around.

User:124.150.51.210 reported by Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) (Result:Already blocked)

Page: Mike Skinner (musician) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 124.150.51.210 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 19:28, 11 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
2. 15:05, 12 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
3. 15:28, 12 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
4. 15:34, 12 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
5. 00:52, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
6. 01:10, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Early life */")
7. 17:22, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

• Already blocked by HJM... Wifione _....... 03:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Dicklyon reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: )

Page: List of U.S. Army, Navy and Volunteer units in the Mexican–American War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dicklyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Two consecutive Requests for Move over two month, first one: move from dash to hyphen, second one: no consensus to revert the first move.

Comments:

Violation of MOS:STABILITY, which cites three arbitration cases that condemn edit warring over stylistic issues. The article was created with a space separated name. One editor changed it to fit the new title of its main article, then Kwamikagami changed it to a dash despite the result of the two move requests. I reverted him because it was against the result of the move requests and because this article had never carried a dash before, and then I warned him. Now Dickylon, who knows of the existence of the RMs because he commented in the second one, has continued the edit-warring by reverting back again to a dash . --Enric Naval (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Hardly edit warring as it was the first time I looked at that article; sorry I didn't look close enough at the history or I would have taken it back to the space, the stable version there. If stability is what you're after, realize that Mexican–American War was stable with the en dash since the middle of 2008, and your campaign to reverse it (like here about the "damned dash" and the threats) is very disruptive. Dicklyon (talk) 00:31, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

You say that the article was improperly moved but you have provided absolutely no proof of such a thing. If you are worried about that, then raise the issue at WP:AN, but don't take the matter in your own hands by edit-warring the page moves. That will only land you a block. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I haven't been edit warring. The evidence of the lack of consensus for the move is at the discussion you linked above: first one: move from dash to hyphen; subsequent discussion confirms the lack of consensus. And if PMAnderson hadn't snuck his anti-dash campaign in here without me noticing, there would have been even more opposition. As to whether the admin who closed it acted improperly as an involved party, I haven't studied that allegation enough to take an opinion on it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

The closer of the first RM said "Consensus here is to move, but with vocal opposition", the second RM was closed as "no consensus to move" (aka, no consensus to undo the first RM). I don't think that the lack of consensus for your edits can be spelled out clearer than that.

The attempts to move the page were advertised in WT:MOS the very same day that the first RM was started here, watchers of the Manual of Style had ample warning and time to participate in any of the two RMs.

The impropriety of the RMs was raised at WP:AN here. The closer of the second RM was probably an uninvolved admin that had spotted the AN thread.

Given all of the above, I don't see much ground for claiming that RMs were improper. Also, the proper thing was to challenge the RM, not to start reverting people who were trying to implement the result of the RM. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Noetica reported by User:Enric Naval (Result: )

Page: Mexican-American War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Noetica (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (the page with a dash, right before the closure of the first RM)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Two consecutive Requests for Move over two month, first one: move from dash to hyphen, second one: no consensus to revert the first move.

Comments:

Keeps refusing to accept the closures of the move requests, and keeps edit-warring over stylistic issues after very clear warnings that he was violating MOS:STABILITY and in the article's talk page .

And he is just picking up the edit war started by Tony1 after I warned Tony1 about reverting again. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Why do you keep pushing away from the stable version, citing WP:STABILITY, and whining when people revert your changes made while the issue is still under discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

How is it still under discussion? There are no open move requests. –CWenger (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Mexican-American War is showing several dozen edits per day recently, including today. Is that not discussion? Dicklyon (talk) 03:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• My impression of Enric's actions is that he's getting a little too personally invested in this hyphen versus dash war. Its ultimately a silly dispute, and its even made it onto the Misplaced Pages:Lamest edit wars page. But yet most of the editors are still being pretty civil and willing to go round and round. But hey, whatever! -- Avanu (talk) 00:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:KTDizzle90 reported by User:Gruselfratze (Result: already blocked)

Page: List of Bob's Burgers episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: KTDizzle90 (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:

Comments:

Already blocked T. Canens (talk) 17:43, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Uriel227 reported by User:AussieLegend (Result: indef)

Page: Dylan and Cole Sprouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Uriel227 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 09:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to: 04:36, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")

• 1st revert: 21:28, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "")
• 2nd revert: 21:56, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
• 3rd revert: 23:45, 13 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
• 4th revert: 05:27, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
• 5th revert: 07:34, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
• 6th revert: 10:18, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
• 7th revert: 11:12, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */")
• 8th revert: 12:13, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Filmography */") (as sockpuppet Uriel228)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:
Uriel227 added a list of episodes to a table in Dylan and Cole Sprouse, which also resulted in a minor table error, here. Since the list was excessively long and unnecessary for the table I replaced the list with "Seven episodes" and corrected the table error, simply noting in the edit summary, "Too precise". I later returned to the article to discover that Uriel227 had been edit-warring with two other editors, so I reverted his last edit and warned him on his talk page. After doing so, I added an explanation and an invitation to discuss the edits, even though he had actually made 4 reverts by then. I did not report him here at that time because his first revert did not restore the table error, and I assumed he may not have understood that the list simply was not necessary. However, 15 minutes after I had left the invitation to discuss on his talk page, and 33 minutes after the 3RR warning was left, he chose to make another revert, so he has now clearly breached 3RR.

--AussieLegend (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Update: Uriel227 has now made a 6th revert after his last edit was reverted by another editor. --AussieLegend (talk) 10:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
• Update2: Uriel227 continues to make reverts after his 6th revert was reverted by another editor. This is despite yet another warning on his talk page. I have advised the other editors of this report. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Update 3: It seems this user now operates as User:Uriel228. At least someone with this name continues reverting. EDIT: Judging from he wikipedia the 228 account (blocked there) was the original account the user started to edit with. I can't read the block notice but it may have been due to renaming. --Denniss (talk) 12:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

After the Uriel228 sockpuppet appeared, I raised an SPI case at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Uriel227. Checkuser appears to indicate that both of these accounst are socks of another user, who appears to be User:אֶפְרָתָה. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely Or soon will be, per SPI. T. Canens (talk) 17:38, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Borchica reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: 48h)

Page: Bosnian pyramids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 10:24, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "unreliable links, dead links, primary sources")
2. 12:07, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "personal interpretation of scientists claims - I just rephrased his statements")
3. 12:34, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* Scientific explanations */")
4. 12:41, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "dead links removed")
5. 15:38, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: " added - pls help find relevant other source")
6. 16:39, 14 April 2011 (edit summary: "you cite sth swelim never said...POV")

• Diff of warning: here

I also warned him a bit later - but he removed my warning. —Dougweller (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I note that his last revert removed a quotation from the source claiming that the source hadn't said it, but I just did copy and paste from the source. Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Just for edit warring. I don't really care if he technically hit the 4-revert line or not. Edit warring is blockable independent of 3RR. T. Canens (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Andrewedwardjudd reported by User:BigK HeX (Result: 72h)

Page: Fractional-reserve banking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andrewedwardjudd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 12:37, 14 April 2011, this was performed after being reverted by User:Lawrencekhoo
• 2nd revert: 13:23, 14 April 2011, this was performed after being reverted by myself
• 3rd revert: 13:35, 14 April 2011 , this was performed after being reverted by User:Bobrayner
• 4th revert: 16:24, 14 April 2011, this was performed after being reverted again by User:Bobrayner
• 5th revert: 17:20, 14 April 2011 , this was performed after being reverted again by myself

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Excessive reverts over the past few hours. Multiple editors have been trying to appeal to User:Andrewedwardjudd to no avail. BigK HeX (talk) 17:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Second recent editwarring block.  Sandstein  18:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring