Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:40, 29 March 2009 editWilliam M. Connolley (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers66,011 edits →MusicInTheHouse reported by FFMG (Result: 24h): fmt next← Previous edit Revision as of 11:41, 29 March 2009 edit undoFuture Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,183 edits →FDAU reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48h): banned sock anywayNext edit →
Line 604: Line 604:


48h ] (]) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC) 48h ] (]) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

: Actually, on further consideration, I'm more and more convinced that this account is a sock of banned user ] anyway. Same revert-warring, same style, same editing profile (Greek air traffic, economics, "developed countries", removing Turkish names from placename articles), same IP range . Can we indef him? ] ] 11:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


== ] reporting ] == == ] reporting ] ==

Revision as of 11:41, 29 March 2009

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
Articles and content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
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.

    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)
    348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357
    358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165
    1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480
    481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336
    337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346
    Other links

    Reports

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    ==

    User:Kmhad reported by User:WilyD (Result: Blocked by Rklawton whilst I was writing this report. (31 hours))


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    User:Nowthenews reported by staffwaterboy (Result: N/a)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • All reverts

    C21K reported by Swapnils2106 (result: as above)

    User:Tycoon24 reported by User:MMAJunkie250 (Result: Warned)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    DWC LR and 84.90.92.195 reported by MathCool10 (Result: no vio)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert: (IP only)


    • Diff of 3RR warning: and

    It is obvious that the IP and the user are warring over the addition of some material. This article seems to be written primarily by the user. See the diffs/history for more info. MathCool10 02:50, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    You are listing reverts from 2008. No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 19:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    173.55.27.133 reported by Arcayne (Result: no vio)

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

    Judging from the anon IP user's contributions, they appear to be an SPA with a vendetta against the subject of the BLP article. the user has added the identical set of three edits three times since 3/21/09; the same three edits twice over the past 2 days surpassed the 3RR limit. Attempts at engaging the user in discussion have gone unanswered both in article discussion (1) and in the anon IP's usertalk space(2, 3). Their edits are disruptive, and the user doesn't seem interested in talking.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    As this user is an SPA with an ax to grind, I don't think that Misplaced Pages is proper forum for their grievances. They should be indef blocked. - Arcayne () 04:38, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    Contiguous edits count as one, so no vio. I'm confused about the axe-to-grind stuff though: the anon is removing stuff about him being an elvis impersonator William M. Connolley (talk) 09:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    Might I get you to look at the edits again, William? The same set of three keeps getting added every day. My reference to the 'ax to grind' is the revert of how Cawley pays for the production himself with an edit claiming that others do (1). Additionally, there is the removal of Cawley as an Elvis impersonator (2); apparently the anon has an opinion as to Cawley's impression. Third, the noting of Cawley (3) as an extra when he is actually described as having a cameo role (spoken lines, whereas extras do not). This, coupled with the posts noting uncited info in article discussion(4, 5), the anon clearly has issues with Cawley. As this has happened three times already, I don't think they are planning on stopping any time soon. As the article is a BLP, maybe we should take steps to protect it from an anon who isn't interested in discussion. Other new folk have acted well within the rules, whichis why I didn't seek RfPP. - Arcayne () 11:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
    OK, I got confused over who was removing what. However, this is effectively 3 reverts since the 21st - hardly AN3 material William M. Connolley (talk) 12:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    Marelstrom reported by BigK HeX (Result: 48h)



    User mostly seems concerned with obfuscating indication of the weight of a minority perspective given in the article. Weight is being noted per WP:UNDUE


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Also, it may help to be aware of this: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/70.125.108.39


    If that investigation pans out, then this would be the third violation of WP:3RR in about 3 days (see above reports at: Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#70.125.108.39_reported_by_BigK_HeX_.28Result:_24h.29 and Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#70.125.108.39_reported_by_BigK_HeX_.28Result:_48h.29)

    It could be helpful to put a protection of some sort on the article. BigK HeX (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    48h. It is already semi. If anyone else shows up and does the same edits, let me know William M. Connolley (talk) 08:57, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    Tennis expert reported by Ohconfucius (talk) (Result:No action )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Another example of the pattern of disruption by Ohconfucius. He's insisting on the right to be insulting and incivil to me on a subpage in his user space, which he has no right to do. He's also been blatantly dishonest in several of his posts about that subpage, not only on my talk page but on his own subpage and in the proposal to delete that subpage. He believes it's some sort of big joke when it's actually emblamatic of how he constantly disrespects the Misplaced Pages community. He just recently came off a two-week block for using several anonymous IP accounts to evade a block of his registered account. He was disruptive on his own discussion page during the two-week block, earning a series of warnings. And now that the block has expired, he's obviously decided to avenge himself by creating the "WikiDiva Awards" subpage (among others). He should be blocked indefinitely or banned as there is no indication that he intends to be a constructive contributor to the project. Tennis expert (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    There is not a chance that anyone is getting blocked for removing a reference to them being a wiki diva from someone elses user space. If you really want to carry on using the page, then I suggest you leave Tennis expert out of it completely else you'll be getting the disruption block. I suggest you knock it off right away. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    Donadio reported by Opinoso (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This user is already famous for using talk pages of articles as if they were a forum, always talking about Portuguese people and posting unsourced figures about Portuguese people in Brazil, usually growing the importance of Portuguese in the ethnic composition of Brazil, and decreasing the importance of other ethnic groups, such as Africans, Italians or German (it seems a case of Portuguese nationalism there). He already tried to use a Phone Book as a source, because most Brazilians have Portuguese surnames, then he concluded that they are all whites of direct Portuguese descent (as if African-Americans with British surnames were of direct British descent). Now he's claiming Gauchos are all of direct Portuguese descent, when the article Gaucho itself reports that they can be of any race or racial combination.


    Moreover, this user was blocked several times the past weeks for disruptions in several articles. Recently, he was disputing the talk page of article White Latin American and did personal attacks to other users. Then, he decided to leave Misplaced Pages arguing "Reversing all my edits, since I don't want to be associated to Misplaced Pages in any way", and started to reverte all his "contributions":

    He was, once again, blocked because of this vandalism. He even said he was going to open a legal threat against Misplaced Pages. But, in fact, he was pretending to be leaving Misplaced Pages, since now he is back again with the same disruptions and behaviour. He's not going to stop until somebody block him definitely Opinoso (talk) 15:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    24h. O advised to read the ] exemption on vandalism rather more carefully than he has done so far William M. Connolley (talk) 19:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:68.61.156.4 reports by Nil Einne (talk) (Result:Declined)

    • Previous version reverted to:

    User has kept adding the same junk to the article without reliable sources even though he/she has been repeatedly asked

    Has been reverted by multiple people who have explained why on the talk page Talk:Fields of science#Intelligent Design Reverted. User has also violated 3RR now (see last 4 edits) and although a specific 3RR warning was not given (as I suspected the user may potentially not violate it but edit war anyway), I feel my 2 warnings ( and ), also given at ) which were given before the latest edits were sufficient to warn/explain to the user their behaviour was unacceptable and they will be blocked.

    I have my suspicions that the user is a troll rather then a well meaning if seriously confused user, see Talk:Mount Redoubt (Alaska)#Effect of God? as well as . Their previous contribs and

    Nil Einne (talk) 23:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

    • Declined Editor made no reverts after being informed of the 3-revert-rule. Report again if there are further reverts in the near future, referencing this report. CIreland (talk) 04:56, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:ProcupPosse reported by User:Arbiteroftruth (Result: No action regarding edit war)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Arbiteroftruth 04:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    70.108.79.147 reported by TheRedPenOfDoom (Result: semi)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    additionally from an ongoing sock investigation:

    User has already broken 3RR on Tim Hasselbeck by using other socks:

    • Diff of removal of 3RR warning:

    as well as previous warnings and ;

    At Elizabeth Hasselbeck, the IP continues to add specific birthdates for non-notable minors, despite consensus otherwise on the talk page. The IP has been blocked for the 3rr violation at Tim Hasselbeck for returning NPOV BP:BLP content. And has been warned about 3rr edits returning material violating WP:FAIR at Girlfriends -- The Red Pen of Doom 05:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    You can't spell. Anyway, semi for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 08:30, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    UPDATE

    The editor has returned under another IP after being notified that the ip 70.108.118.234 had been blocked (). The new edtis have continued to violate 3rr and WPBLP issues (). -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:16, 28 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.108.118.234 (talk)

    I wasnt aware that redpen had tricked u all once again in2 a block. Let me look. Meanwhile isnt redpen too supposed 2 not be editing 4 24hrs? The links I added to Matt LeBlanc are imdb,eonline, & femalefirst. What blog is redpen talking about? 70.108.118.234 (talk) 15:25, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Doc Tropics reported by Matsuiny2004 (Result: 24h)



    • 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
    • 16th revert
    • 17th revert
    • 18th revert
    • 19th revert
    • 20th revert
    • 21st revert
    • 22nd revert
    • 23rd revert
    • 24th revert
    • 25th revert
    • 26th revert
    • 27th revert



    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    this user said I was degrading the quality of the page and claimed I was vandalizing even after I left explanations for the changes I made and used cited sources as well. Matsuiny2004 (talk) 06:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    Contiguous edits count as one, so most of this vast list aren't reverts. OTOH you've indulged in the behaviour you've reported DT for, so you clearly believe that it is blockable behaviour, so I have acted in accordance with that William M. Connolley (talk) 08:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Olinga at Gynoid (Result: warned)

    (Warned here, response was "report away")

    He has reverted 2 editors. A consensus version was then changed to essentially the same format the reverts were to (with a different section title). A block might emphasise that reverting is not a good path, would allow more cites to be added to make it obvious he is wrong (i thought 12 was enough, but will add more).

    Edits today are not quite reverts, as i rewrote the article in between, but the similar behaviour mkaes me think consensus is not going to be enough to convince hereYobMod 08:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    Thlgnosis reported by HowardBerry (Result: no action)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    1. 09:46, 27 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    2. 10:30, 27 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    3. 10:56, 27 March 2009 (edit summary: "")
    4. 10:59, 27 March 2009 (edit summary: "")


    The user constantly removes the COI and VI tags on this article. I'm trying to assume good faith as they are a new user, and have offered advice on the article talk page, and other related articles Thlgnosis has been editing, but each time I'm getting minimal response and seeing the tags being removed without the issues being resolved. I warned against 3RR in my last edit summary on the article in question. Howie ☎ 11:16, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    No reverts since your warning. Warn earlier next time and sign it William M. Connolley (talk) 22:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    Syjytg reported by Arbiteroftruth (Result: indef)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning: (treated as vandalism.)

    Arbiteroftruth 15:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    Reporter exceeded more than 3 times as well and reporter should read What is Vandalism and what is not. He doesn't even know how to differtiante vandalism and non-vandalism. Syjytg (talk) 15:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    You have, more than once and after many times of me talking to you about the pages in question, reverted them to a poorly worded and poorly constructed version of the page. You even used the wrong Chinese script on the page (Hong Kong uses Traditional, not Simplified). You have, after my continued advice, continued to include excessive info on the page, which is a blatant violation of Misplaced Pages's MOS. Stop blaming your incompetence and unwillingness to follow rules on other people. Arbiteroftruth 15:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    You think it is a poor article only. I think mine is totally brilliant. This is a Singapore show, not Hong Kong, you don't even know your facts don't come and talk. Syjytg (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    Flaming Butterfly is a show produced by Asia Television, which is based in Hong Kong. It was bought by MediaCorp. That does not make it a Singaporean show, just like MediaCorp buying Two and a Half Man doesn't make it a Singaporean show. Also, your version of the page had too much information, wrong Chinese script, and poor construction. I improved the page as an effort to help Misplaced Pages, only to be met by your opposition (a blatant violation of WP:OWN).Arbiteroftruth 15:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
    2009-03-27T17:19:45 PeterSymonds (talk | contribs | block) changed block settings for Syjytg (talk | contribs) with an expiry time of indefinite (account creation blocked) ‎ (Continued socking within minutes after last block. Abusing multiple accounts: Continued abuse of multiple accounts - Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Syjytg) William M. Connolley (talk) 22:58, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    Abbatai reported by Marshal Bagramyan (result: 24h)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert
    • 2nd revert
    • 3rd revert
    • 4th revert

    This user has consistently failed to provide reliable sources to support his claims which have surpassed the borders of simple vandalism. Despite numerous attempts to settle the issues on the talk page, the user combatively taunted others and broke into a tirade accusing all those reverting him of "spreading Anti-Turkish propaganda" and has begun to turn Misplaced Pages into a battleground broken by ethnic lines . In either case, he is inserting information which is propagandist in nature and seeks to fudge the truth on the Armenian Genocide. His disruptive edits have spread to other pages, as a quick check on his contributions will show.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 16:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    He has now violated 3RR on other pages as well and continues reverting on Igdir.-- Ευπάτωρ 19:59, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    MusicInTheHouse reported by FFMG (Result: 24h)

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

    There are many more edits, (and 3RR), on other pages all related to the user trying to insert a copyrighted image. There is a discussion ongoing on the Rugby project page about the image and until then no image should be used. FFMG (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 22:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:Offliner reported by User:Cmp7

    User:Offliner has repeatedly and maliciously added, removed, disrupted, and falsely edited Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) to suit his personal agenda before anyone could even come to a consensus on the question of keeping or deleting the article. Offliner has rejected any consensus or right to free speech on Misplaced Pages and is alienating peoples rights as contributors to Misplaced Pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmp7 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    I should point out that cmp7 removed the proposed deletion template from the page before the issue was settled by an admin, and has already been issued a final warning regarding his disruptive editing. Regarding Offliner, nothing he did could be considered vandalism. He explained his edit both in the proposed deletion discussion, and in the edit summary, and I agree with him. LokiiT (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    12.108.255.76 reported by Adolphus79 (Result: semi)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    I, among a couple other editors have tried to clean this article up, removing unencyclopdic content such as a complete listing of the menu, and what kind of music the restaurant plays, etc... the IP reverts anyone that tries to change the article at all... I have tried discussing the changes with the user, asking why they think a complete menu listing is notable or encyclopedic, I even suggested that they file a RfC... all they do is revert the changes saying that it is only opinion... They revert to a diff previous of other changes made to clean the article up also, with no apparent intentions to discuss this... I gave a 3RR warning, and asked that they discuss the changes on the article's talk page... they reverted the changes again, without any discussion... made a comment that the menu needs to be part of the article so that people know what each of the menu items is... considering that I have already given 3RR (and am on the verge of 3RR myself), I thought I would bring it here... - Adolphus79 (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Semi-protected for a while William M. Connolley (talk) 08:21, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    TheRedPenOfDoom reported by 70.108.118.234 (Result: 24h)




    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Warning :
    Andrea Anders (actress) 3rr warning
    Please do not undo other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in


    Add any other comments and sign your name here -->

    stalker redpen has been stalking me since 22Mar. For this encounter, redpen stalked me to Andrea Anders. My edits are those attributed to User_talk:70.108.102.252 & Special:Contributions/70.108.102.252...my ip changed). I simply corrected The Class to The Class (TV series) & redpen reverted saying wpblp , yet I added no bio info! I then decided to add sources 4 the info that was already in the article that I didnt add but still redpen reverted.
    If you will please take the time you'll see that redpen is following me throughout wiki & reverting all my edits. Please intervene. Thanks. 70.108.118.234 (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Well, that was wearily predictable. RP also counselled to caution in reverting William M. Connolley (talk) 08:19, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Y is redpen only counseled but earlier this week I was blocked? 70.108.118.234 (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    william you said TheRedPenOfDoom would be blocked for 24hours but I still see editing. 173.79.59.36 (talk) 03:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    No... I said someone was blocked, but it was the anon, not RP William M. Connolley (talk) 11:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    70.128.85.90 reported by A2Kafir (Result: 24h)

    • 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:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I only just now warned an anonymous user about 3RR. I don't edit that much anymore, so I'm unsure how this type of thing is handled. But this user has only edited this article, and only to remove factual information repeatedly. AKafir (and...?) 22:14, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Even after warnings on his talk page, IP has reverted twice more without discussion. Dayewalker (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    FDAU reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48h)

    1. 13:46 28 March
    2. 17:12 28 March
    3. 18:54 28 March
    4. 22:37 28 March
    5. 09:51 29 March
    6. 11:20 29 March

    Just came off another block for the same issue, re-kindling a mass edit war. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Of which edit war, once more, Fut. Perf. is a major party . I have flagged his persistent edit warring in his previous report about FDAU , however he didn't seem to change his behaviour. It is obvious Future Perfect at Sunrise editing behaviour in the article Greece clearly constitutes edit warring, as defined in WP:EDITWAR: "For instance, edit warring could take the form of 4+ reverts on a page in a day, or three, or one per day for a protracted period of time, or one per page across many pages, or simply a pattern of isolated blind reverts as a first resort against disagreeable edits."--Avg (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    48h William M. Connolley (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, on further consideration, I'm more and more convinced that this account is a sock of banned user User:Mywayyy anyway. Same revert-warring, same style, same editing profile (Greek air traffic, economics, "developed countries", removing Turkish names from placename articles), same IP range . Can we indef him? Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    User:WarthogDemon reporting User:Markharding93

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Article is currently under AFD discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/MaestroZone

    The user has repeatedly removed the notability tag from the page and re-adding content removed by at least three other users, not including myself. Has been warned numerous times. -WarthogDemon 23:07, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    And has now done so again at http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=MaestroZone&diff=280308172&oldid=280303396 . -WarthogDemon 23:42, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

    Hauskalainen reported by Hamitr (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:


    • Diff of previous 3RR warning for same article:
    • Diff of more recent warning between 2nd and 3rd revert today:

    --Hamitr (talk) 02:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    A bit more background information in case it is helpful. User Hauskalainen keeps adding an extensive list of UK laws restricting firearms, knives, etc. The content was discussed on the talk page March 14 - 20, and then the content was removed with the consensus that it belonged in other articles like Firearm laws in the United Kingdom, etc.
    Since that removal, Hauskalainen has reverted the removal (re-added the material) twice on March 20, and then the three times listed above.
    --Hamitr (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    Toarchives reported by Chuckiesdad (Result: 1 week )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 04:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    2009-03-29T07:11:00 Sandstein (talk | contribs | block) blocked Toarchives (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Edit warring) (unblock | change block) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    Lear 21 reported by Fut.Perf

    1. 22 March, 11:58
    2. 22 March, 12:35
    3. 24 March, 17:43
    4. 25 March, 12:12
    5. 26 March, 15:08
    6. 27 March, 13:09
    7. 29 March, 09:32

    Slow but long-term edit war (1 rv/day), also on multiple other articles (see contribs on 23 March c.19:30 and 22 March c.12:00). User is alone against several others in insisting on a purely symbolic flag image with no factual encyclopedic information (apparently, for him, a POV issue, about promoting the importance of the EU). User has multiple previous blocks for EU-related revert warring. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    Discussion

    Lear 21 has not been part of edit warring according to Misplaced Pages policy. Lear 21 has uphold content from an FA article (Germany) which was established for half a year by now. User Lear 21 has properly argued at talk pages to uphold the content consisting of two images. At the talk pages 2 users expressed their critic of the 2 images and 2 users signalized support, one the supporters were Lear 21. User Future Perfect at Sunrise on the other hand has been not part of any discussion concerning the removal of content of the respective article (Germany). User Future Perfect at Sunrise has been reminded by Lear 21 that his deletion actions at the Germany article are undiscussed but refused to take part of any discussions nevertheless. At the very moment the procedure of Future Perfect at Sunrise actions including this report here tends to be rather abusive while at the same time ignoring several Misplaced Pages guidelines. Lear 21 (talk) 11:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

    Result

    This section is to be edited only by the administrator processing this report.

    Categories: