Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:00, 25 March 2011

• 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.

Click here to create a new report

131.156.211.10 reported by User:Rusted AutoParts

Page: Bob's Burgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 131.156.211.10

Clean version: unvandalized version.

IP has been hopping and refuses to understand Misplaced Pages guidelines. Revert profile: 1, 2, 3, 4.

Comments:
The IP has been warned that he was reverted. I cannot see why he refuses to add a source or acknowledge this is trivia. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:38 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:ComtesseDeMingrélie reported by User:Maunus (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:ComtesseDeMingrelie is just coming out of a 31 block for editwarring and is at it again... ·Maunus·ƛ· 02:16, 18 March 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) 06:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• This is not a 3rr report but an editwarring report. This user came straight out of a 31 hour block for reverting five and four times on two different articles and continued reversion. I think there is every basis for action here - it shows that he has not taken the editwarring policy to heart during his previous block. I think you should reconsider here.·Maunus·ƛ· 12:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
• You did not provide sufficient sources and that is why I reverted it. Linking to a website did not help us identify concrete evidence in any way. In this regard, you were edit warring as much as I. Providing these links while excluding what I wrote on talk pages is unfair and you know that.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

You are incorrect, Arguni reverted twice and I reverted twice. You reverted three times removing sourced content in the face of two disagreeing editors. That is editwarring. I personally don't care one little bit about who is or isn't a mingrelian, but I do care about the way in which you try to enforce your personal viewpoint through editwarring. That is not acceptable and if you do not realise that you have to discuss instead of revert you will end up being blocked for a lot longer than 31 hrs.·Maunus·ƛ· 16:16, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

How is it possible that your and Arguni's initial edits do not need to be discussed before being made but my reverts do? Throwing something in and then hoping that discussions are going to drag on does not help. When he saw that his edits were disputed (and being reverted is a clear sign of that), instead of reverting it back he was supposed to be the one opening the discussion as he was the one who initiated the change.You are playing with double standards and just because you are an administrator do not think that I am going to swallow this bias or any of your threats.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 21:53, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

ComtesseDeMingrélie is editwarring according as his own opinions, here are the examples. I just wanted to change their nationalist propagandas about Lazs and Laz language. There are other users too who are spreading this propaganda with using wikipedia policies as politely. English wikipedia is not a playground of some users and this is not acceptable. Arguni (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

You and your companion Apswaa, Arguni, were the ones who started ceaseless POV pushing, I was reverting it all merely because you have not answered multiple questions that I and some other users posed on the talk pages. Your goal on wikipedia is to promote secessionism, evident in your support of Apswaa and deliberate targeting of Georgia-related pages.--ComtesseDeMingrélie 18:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

What are you speaking about? I said 100 times that i have no relation with Apswaa and i don't support anyone here. Stop this prejudiced blames about me. Arguni (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Bakhshi82 reported by User:Flyer22 (Result: Protected)

Page: Titanic (1997 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bakhshi82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

On the 13th

• 1st revert:

On the 19th

• 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: The editor hardly discusses anything on the talk page, and seems to only use it to state that his edits should be in the lead, disregarding the Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Academy Awards Records discussion which centers on POV/unsourced/WP:Weasel wording and inaccuracies, and continues to revert to his version. All of this has also led to this discussion: Talk:Titanic (1997 film)#Manual of Style (film). But he is not willing to compromise; check out diffs 3 and 4 (on the 19th), and this comment in that discussion: . Flyer22 (talk) 17:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Fully protected one week. Consider opening up an WP:RfC. The talk discussion is vigorous, but the fact that consensus is not reached does not seem to inhibit anyone from reverting whatever they want into the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for looking over this case. Consensus has actually been reached about which version of the lead should be employed. See the section on a compromise proposal for a quick answer. Now there is only a minor issue of wording for the reported editor. But I suppose protecting the article for a week will not hurt, since the reported editor does keep "tweaking" a few words, and the article is not that active with editing (already being GA and all). Flyer22 (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Michael.suede reported by User:Spacehippy (Result:blocked 1 month )

Page: Magnetic reconnection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Michael.suede (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
As far as we can tell on the talk page, this user is an advocate of the fringe theory known as plasma cosmology (see also the discussion on the fringe theory noticeboard). The user has been pushing his own views which he discussed on his external website and elsewhere. On this website, which is a forum for proponents of plasma cosmology, the user calls for others to participate in the edit war. The tone of this user on the talk page has been quite disruptive; it has essentially become a flame war. It is clear that this user is not willing to participate in consensus building. I also (embarrassingly) participated in this edit war; I apologize for this. At this point, the assistance of an administrator is necessary for this problem to be resolved. Spacehippy (talk) 20:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

One month block. Vsmith (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Tomstedham reported by User:RolandR (Result: Warned)

Page: Rahm Emanuel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tomstedham (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:

• Result: Warned. The editor broke WP:3RR but stopped reverting the article after getting a 3RR warning. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:57, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:MarshalN20 reported by IP 200.87.23.193 (Result: Protected)

Page: Diablada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarshalN20 (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:
Earlier today it has been advised to avoid edit wars there was a previous formal mediation Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Diablada involving this user, I'm afraid the conflicts will arise again. It has been told the user to refrain from accusing of vandalism and defamation, the following statement is just more of that. There is no evidence of puppetry and can be checked if necessary. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 23:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I would recommend to the reviewer to pay special attention to the links provided below, the full phrase says "...but I do see many revisions as "rv vandalism" when the edits aren't necessarily vandalism. I strongly recommend all users follow the WP:BRD system, and that Marshal refrain from reverting edits as "vandalism." Beyond that if anyone violates the three revert rule it should be reported at WP:AN3" which is what MarshalN20 is precisely doing here, my edits were also reviewed by User:Swarm and none of them were vandalism as he said also in the link provided, the same happens with the sockpuppetry accusation which was dismissed and later MarshalN20 unnecessarily even though it was a closed case started ranting, it's not a crime to read the rules before editing, there wasn't any "massive" image deletion I counted myself there were just 3 images, one low res map that seems disputed, one duplicated image and one that I didn't notice wasn't before, after MarshalN20 claims (though unfounded) I decided that the best way to be fair was to keep some of the changes proposed just fixing the POV issues (notice that the claims were at 16:11 GMT while my later edits were at 18:16 GMT yet the user tries to depict me as an irrational vandal who will destroy the article, while in the last trend of my edits the source, and should be notice is one not sources, is still in the first sentence, regardless that I consider it violating the NPOV because as the introduction later says, is danced in other places too, the low res map is still there, yet this person continues making a scandal and tries to get me banned by all means just for not liking his map, which will never hide the fact that he reverted 5 times in less than 6 hours, this only aggravates the situation when MarshalN20 could just have followed Swarm's advice and talk politely in the talk page instead of reverting constantly. Honestly speaking I believe that perhaps there should be a more in-depth review oh this article's history and the mediation, I think that there is a more complex problem with this user's behavior towards others. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 09:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

All of my reverts are explained in the history of the links. This IP user (showing signs of being a puppet) has been vandalizing the article by:

1. Deleting sourced material.
2. Deleting valid images (including this edit ).
3. Being a sockpuppet of User:Erios30 (to evade 3RR). Investigation is currently being carried out at Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Erios30.
4. IP later admits to having deleted sourced material (but still deletes image: ). So, his first two pieces of rv evidence are invalid by his own confession.
5. Third rv evidence demonstrates massive deletion of images: .
6. The Wikiquette reviewer explicitly wrote: "I don't see any violations of civility". Despite this resolution, this user keeps accusing me of personal attacks and "defamation."
7. For the last 3 alleged rv evidences, the following little conversation demonstrates the IP user didn't even bother to look at the description page of the image. The evidence for this is that he claims the "yellow area" of the map means the location of origin of the Diablada (). I responded to him that the description page (in Wikimedia Commons) clearly has the yellow area labeled as the Altiplano region ( and the description page link, ). Conclusion: This IP address blunders his own argument by demonstrating he was simply deleting images with no real reason whatsoever; he had not even read the description page. This constitutes vandalism.

As such, reverting vandalism is not a 3RR problem. The real problem is having the vandal himself come and denounce the editor that has been reverting his vandalism. Best of wishes.--MarshalN20 | 00:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Article protected one week. Please use this time to search for consensus on the talk page. Erios30 may be new here, but that editor has a record of contributions on the Spanish Misplaced Pages. On the other hand, it is strange for an IP with no track record to be making filings at WP:AN3. If you expect to be posting at noticeboards, you should create an account. EdJohnston (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.--MarshalN20 | 22:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, I'll create an account right now. 200.87.23.193 (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

79.228.211.155 reported by User:GageSkidmore (Result: No action)

Page: Family Guy (season 9) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 79.228.211.155 (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:

User has continually reverted the article without discussing the issue on the talk, writing "Why?" when I attempted to direct them to bring up the issue on the Talk page. Despite this, they have reverted the article four times, and removed the 3RR template from their talk page by blanking it, and pasting it on mine instead. I have attempted to get the user to discuss why they believe the article should be changed to their version, but they have made no attempts whatsoever. Gage (talk) 03:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Both parties have broken 3RR, but there seems to be a formatting convention for the earlier seasons of Family Guy, and the IP is reverting against it for season 9. The IP just keeps reverting and offers no reasons for his preference. Since 24 hours have passed since the IP's last revert, a block may not be needed. If this resumes, submit again and the IP may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Msnicki reported by User:Grandscribe (Result: Protected)

Page: Bash (Unix shell) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Msnicki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
As can be seen the definition of Bash needs to be improved. My contributions were done in good faith. Unfortunately Msnicki did not collaborate. He simply engaged in edit warring and has reverted revert my edits 6 times already. He has acted in bad faith by accusing me of vandalism because I did not agree with his reverts. A contribution by user Gronky is trying to help improve the Bash article but Msnicki is also threatening to revert his edits.

--Grandscribe (talk) 06:55, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry that Grandscribe is unhappy. The edits Grandscribe wanted were discussed on the Talk:Bash (Unix shell) page. When it became clear that we could not resolve it, I requested a WP:Third opinion which supported my position, that we should not allow GNU to speak in Misplaced Pages's voice, as the Third opinion pointed out. Grandscribe ignored the Third opinion and wasn't able to drum up any other support for his position despite what I regard as a misrepresent of the disagreement.

I only began characterizing Grandscribe's attempts to continue inserting the same (or substantially the same) peacock language as vandalism after I made clear I was relying specifically on the Third opinion. I do my best to follow to rules and correctly use the tools (I'm using WP:Twinkle) to give appropriate warnings. For example, I know from a previous (otherwise irrelevant) experience, editors are generally entitled to warnings about their behavior that got ignored before you have grounds to complain about them. (And, btw, I notice Grandscribe has not done that here.) Here is where I posted the warnings, which Grandscribe promptly deleted, also claiming vandalism. And here is where I explained why I had given the warning. But I'm not perfect in either my knowledge of the rules or in the use of the software. If my characterization is judged unfair by consensus, then I promise to acknowledge my error, make an apology and follow whatever advice I'm given in the future.

I am committed to following the rules, treating other editors with respect and to the basic principle that this is a consensus project. I am open to suggestions for how I can improve. But all that's going on here is that Grandscribe is unhappy that he wasn't successful in demanding that his view had to be the consensus. Msnicki (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: Protected three days. This looks to be a slow-motion edit war. Both Grandscribe and Msnicki have misused the term 'vandalism' in their edit summaries, and I hope it does not continue. Grandscribe seemed to misinterpret Msnicki's 3RR warning template as a 'blocking threat'. Msnicki is not correct in believing that reverting a WP:3O suggestion is vandalism. Consider opening up a WP:Request for comment and get it advertised. The RfC could ask which of two versions ought to be in the lead. An RfC sometimes brings in new people to a discussion, which can help to break a deadlock. Nearly all of the recent edits on the article seem to be reverts, so you all need to work on getting consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I apologize for my incorrect use of the term vandalism. Msnicki (talk) 22:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:223.29.227.6 reported by User:Minimac (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Smita Patil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 223.29.227.6 (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:

Comments:

It isn't just this article, but this IP has revert-warred on all articles contributed by Shshshsh. It's suspected that this IP is used by banned user User:Dr.Mukesh111, due to the nature of the edits. Me and Shshshsh have tried their hardest to revert their contribs, but this isn't working without a block. Minimac (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours - 3RR, hounding, disruptive editing. Dougweller (talk) 10:30, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:85.2.10.158 reported by Strikerforce (Result: Semi)

Page: G-WAN (Web server) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 85.2.10.158 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 11:40, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Exposed the Cherokee Troll trying to delete G-WAN")
2. 12:07, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420132439 by Strikerforce (talk) Vandals at work (again...)")
3. 12:09, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134346 by Strikerforce (talk) Not impressed by the Opinion of the guilty "fellow editors"")
4. 12:13, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134636 by Syrthiss (talk) Vandal gaming Misplaced Pages to hide its crimes")

• Diff of warning: here

It should also be pointed out that this user is utilizing a dynamic IP and is currently engaged in a very heated discussion at AfD. There is an RFC open that includes all IPs that this user has used —Strikerforce (talk) 12:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Comment - user has now logged in as User:Bugapi and reverted to their preferred version, per this edit. Link added by Strikerforce Syrthiss (talk) 12:24, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected by Excirial. Bugapi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been indef blocked by Excirial. The article has been nominated for deletion. The semiprotection will keep Bugapi's IP socks from continuing to add nonsense to the article during the deletion debate. Notice Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Bugapi and WP:Requests for comment/Bugapi. EdJohnston (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Keyssence reported by User:Qwyrxian (Result: Warned)

Page: Northeast Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Keyssence (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:

Note that the 2nd through 5th are within a 24 hour period.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Issue was discussed by User: Oda Mari and User: Prodego on User:Keyssence's talk page. User was informed that the point xe is disputing is explicitly governed by WP:NC-KO#Sea of Japan (East Sea), specifically because this is a problem that has caused numerous edit wars in the past; as such, a clear, unambiguous set of naming conventions were set up so that we didn't have to debate the same issue again every page this body of water is named on.Qwyrxian (talk) 12:47, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Warned. It is too long since the last revert to issue a block. If this behavior resumes, a substantial block may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 23:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Bugapi reported by Strikerforce (Result: Indef)

Page: G-WAN (Web server) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 12:17, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420134954 by Strikerforce (talk) Accused of vandalism while I AM THE AUTHOR OF THIS WHOLE ARTICLE")
2. 12:36, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420136622 by Tom Morris (talk)")
3. 12:42, 22 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420137537 by Tom Morris (talk) Tom Morris removed a (requested) reference showing no vulnerabilities in server")

• Diff of warning: here

—Strikerforce (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Result: Blocked indef by User:Excirial. Another report of the same dispute was closed here. EdJohnston (talk) 03:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Damiens.rf reported by User:Dreadstar (Result: 24h)

Page: Yoani Sánchez (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Damiens.rf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:38, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 13:08, 22 March 2011 (direct revert)
2. 17:21, 22 March 2011 (revert of this edit)
3. 17:37, 22 March 2011 (revert of this edit)
4. 18:54, 22 March 2011 (revert of this edit)
5. 19:25, 22 March 2011 (revert all the way back to here

• Diff of warning: latest one here, user has been blocked for 3RR multiple times

• • What the hell? These are completely unrelated edits. The first one is a revert of vandalism. User:Lildyson314 (a SPA or sock) has removed sourced content from the article for no apparent reason.The other are normal article's changes. I'm working with collaborating editors on the talk page, but there are those that prefer to act in groups to revert my edits without discussion, forcing me into the 3RR trap. --Damiens.rf 19:58, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Item #5 is not event a revert. One of the links dates back to 2009! --Damiens.rf 20:00, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours #5 is bogus, but the first 4 are a clear violation. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:13, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

User:BornonJune8 reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: 31h)

Page: Template:The CW Television Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: BornonJune8 (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:
BornonJune8 is also editwarring on Season Finale: The Unexpected Rise and Fall of The WB and UPN and quite a few other articles where this new template has been added. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:29, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've very clearly stated and articulated my rationale behind why I felt that the CW Television Network template should include topics (since I strongly believe that they're essential in said network's history/background) involving the UPN and WB networks. I don't think that my fellow editors have really bothered to not seriously look into this particular factor (its practically been glossed over as if they aren't just as important). This is proof that the two networks merged, and not simply shut down with this brand new entity coming to fill the void per se: http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/24/commentary/mediabiz/index.htm

BornonJune8 (talk) 10:10 p.m., 22 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 31 hours for 3RR violation. It is not enough to 'clearly state and articulate' your rationale. You also need to persuade the other editors that your version is correct. If the others disagree you should wait for consensus and not just continue to revert. EdJohnston (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Parrot of Doom reported by Philip Baird Shearer (Result: No action taken)

Page: Guy Fawkes Night (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: -- but not all the time some of the edits are reverts of other intermediate edits.

• 1st revert: diff "These changes turn a clear and concise history of the celebration into a factoid-filled badly-written mess. Reverting as per talk."
• 2nd revert: diff "No discussion needed. Your changes are awful."

Having had two edits reverted rather than continue I (PBS) made a different edit which did not alter anything previously altered:

Change by PBS diff "minor changes new stub section Bonfire Night around the world"

• 3rd revert: diff "Undid revision 420190901 by Philip Baird Shearer (talk) What on earth is the point of this?"

Another change by PBS diff "Moved contemporary photo to the top"

• 4th revert: diff "two images in the lead doesn't work"

Edits by Moonraker2 diff

• 5th revert: diffs This is an edit made in multiple parts, and the diffs are complicated, but as an example of a reversal specifically look at the removal of section headers introduced by Moonraker2.

There is no need for a warning as Parrot of Doom is an experienced editor and has been warned in the past see here. I will post a message to POD's talk page that this entry exists

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Diff is not appropriate see the section Talk:Guy Fawkes Night#Bonfire night is not just an historical event which I created as a new section ten minute before my initial bold edit to the article (that was made at 15:12, 22 March 2011) --PBS (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
It is possible to argue that the fourth and fifth reverts are part of the same revert because they were in a sequence of multiple edits ("A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert."). In which case the 3RR is only breached once not twice. But I chose to show them separately because they reverted the edits of two different editors and were not related. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It would be helpful if any admins looking at this could take into account the confrontational approach and WP:CIVIL violations shown by Parrot of Doom on the Talk:Guy Fawkes Night page. Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see a 3RR violation, though the submitter could choose to view this as a complaint of long-term edit warring. As an admin, PBS must be familiar with the steps of WP:Dispute resolution. I have asked him if he has any suggestions for how to resolve this dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 04:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Blocking would be entirely unproductive at this juncture. Basic dispute resolution would be far more helpful.

Ghmyrtle, you might want to review your own conduct—it wasn't helpful at all for you to tell PoD to read WP:OWN in the manner that you did. NW (Talk) 06:03, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice. My only comment that, in over four years of (wholly block-free and generally uncontentious) editing, I have never, ever, seen a more blatant case of WP:OWN than on that article. It's unfortunate, but until the editor recognises that there is an issue there and undertakes to edit as part of a collective project, there is no possibility of that article being improved, and that is a shame. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

NuclearWarfare why would blocking be unproductive? This is about a breach of the 3RR this is not usually discretionary. -- PBS (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

EdJohnston. Can we narrow it down which of the first four was not a revert? -- PBS (talk) 08:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

@PBS: All admin actions are discretionary—there is no User:3RR Admin Blocking Bot. It is clear that discussion is proceeding on the talk page. What purpose would blocking serve? NW (Talk) 16:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I thought it a mistake to combine edit warring with the 3RR rule, and this I think that this rather confirms it! You ask "What purpose would blocking serve?" it would serve as a future deterrent for PoD not to flout the 3RR rule, particularly given the comment by PoD in response to the posting by me of the message to PoD's talk page, which shows no indication of contrition. Second it would give a respite to cooperatively edit the page without someone who has clearly shown their inability to do so by reverting more than three of edits by different editors within a 24 hour period. I am surprised NW, that you closed this debate before a consensus had been reached on what to do, and I think it would be a good idea to reopen it. -- PBS (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 3RR was broken by PoD. Yes, there was edit warring by multiple parties. Bold, revert, discus seems to have been completely tossed out the window though. As Guy Fawkes Night is an excellent GA, it would have been far reasonable to follow the underlying principles of WP:OWN#FA and discuss on the talk page before you all made the changes you did to an article where the article's primary editor, who is more familiar with the source material than anyone else, was telling you that you were wrong.

I'm not sure how this noticeboard normally works; I pop in here once every blue moon. My apologies if I did this incorrectly. NW (Talk) 02:11, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:SuperblySpiffingPerson reported by User:Avanu (Result: 24h)

Page: 2011 Libyan uprising (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SuperblySpiffingPerson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:SuperblySpiffingPerson#Your_recent_edits_and_.27Neutral_Point_of_View.27_in_Wikipedia

Comments:
I'm not certain what the proper forum for this is, but the editor above seems to be tearing through Misplaced Pages at full speed to make changes to as many articles as possible in order to push forward a certain viewpoint, which seems to be somehow biased in a manner to minimize/delegitimize Gaddafi, and present the conflict in Libya as heading already toward a new transitional government. This is leading other editors to have to 'head him off at the pass', in order to stabilize articles that are already heated with many editors interesting in editing.

Most recently the persistent bias was presented in the following comment: "far too much emphasis on one spokesman of the Jamahiriya" which is the editor's way of referring to Gaddafi. Today, March 23rd alone, Superbly has made 60 edits, which include 10 new pages that are moves of existing pages. Other editors are trying to maintain these articles, keep bias in check, and provide sourced material, but I am puzzled how a user that made no edits before March 11, seems to have a firm grasp on page moving and editing so quickly, maybe they're just precocious. Any advice would be appreciated. Thank you. -- Avanu (talk) 12:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Talkpage discussion has exposed the consensus that a civil war is being referred to by the outdated and minimising term 'uprising'. The two armies are the Jamahiriya and NTC-commanded Transitionists. This war involves vastly more participants than one family. That family name does receive mention, but per WP:Undue not constant and defining mention for all points of the entire war.

Libya isn't under a transition, 'Transitionist' is just a name of one participant in the ongoing war only because they chose to call themselves a national council by that appelation.— Preceding unsigned comment added by ] (] • ])

• Result: Blocked 24 hours for edit warring. You should wait for consensus to be reached on the disputed names. Going ahead and renaming things unilaterally won't win you any friends here. You have also been misusing the 'minor edit' flag. EdJohnston (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:noclador reported by User:Sloane (Result: No action)

Page: 2011 military intervention in Libya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: noclador (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Two things are being reverted: A paragraph on some Turkish statements: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_military_intervention_in_Libya&action=historysubmit&diff=420345553&oldid=420341505

And a newly crafted lead: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=2011_military_intervention_in_Libya&action=historysubmit&diff=420366654&oldid=420361542

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There's some discussion underway here:

Comments: I'm pretty well aware that I'm almost over the line here myself, as I've done three reverts myself on this page the past 24 hours. The first was after user:noclador's removal of the paragraph on Turkey (a decently sourced paragraph, so I thought blatant removal of it was way too bold). The second is regarding the lead, as I thought user:noclador completely threw away some rather constructive edits by several users and inserted a pretty strong POV. The third revert was again, on the lead after user:noclador tagged my revert as vandalism, which I took as a good faith error on his part. This is clearly developing into edit warring and I'd like an admin to at least address user:noclador on this. His disregard for a 3rr warning and his rather aggressive attitude on this article leads me to think this will develop into an edit war again if user:noclador doesn't tone it down a little. I stopped reverting and left the in user:noclador favour, so I hope admins will take that as a good faith gesture from my part.

--Sloane (talk) 20:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

this is an wrongly filed report by a POV tainted editor, who tried to put factually wrong info in the lead paragraph of the article: a) Turkey is not criticizing the current intervention in Libya nor is there any criticisms in the paragraph that the editor wishes to keep; in fact Turkey is participating in the intervention with 5 ships and one submarine. The paragraph says "prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan supports the full-implementation of the resolution" and as Turkey is a participant why keep this paragraph? because it is well sourced? well sourced doesn't mean it makes it correct to keep it in the article. Sloane, in my view, is biased against the intervention i.e. he named this map in a way File:2011 War On Libya Belligerents.svg that for me is not a NPOV of naming a map.

as for the reverts on the lead paragraph there is only 2 reverts: in the first edit I rewrote the lead as it was factually wrong: the error was "a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US". The error was inserted by Sloane . The coalition was much broader, but only this 5 nations were capable and with units ready in the area to strike first - to say it was a five nation coalition is erroneous! Also he removed any mention for what reason the UN resolution and the intervention are undertaken. And actually I was the one, who told him to take it to the talk page as his edits are factually wrong and after that he began to discuss.

The problem as I see it is that Slaone is biased and sometimes seems to edit without care about the factuality of his edits: i.e. one of his latest edits "Operational command of the operation has been turned over to NATO,", which I had to revert, because command of the operation HAS NOT been handed over to NATO! Some minutes later he actually corrected his error and put up the correct version but in another article.

To sum it up in short: this is not an edit war, but an editor, who put up wrong info and I reverted him on that. noclador (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Noclador just made a fifth revert on the article: * No consensus was reached over this on the talk page.--Sloane (talk) 00:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

5th? I did two reverts all day, you bundle various other edits togehter and claim they are reverts, you mostly focus on the Turkish statement and deliberately misquote there to advance your point (see: Talk:2011_military_intervention_in_Libya#Arms_embargo for Turkey discussion), then you report me here for writing a new lead sentence which takes out an grave error???? and I put that even in the edit summary??? So, we must now not take out errors anymore? noclador (talk) 00:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Since there appear to be dozens of editors and it's an extremely fast-moving article, it's not clear how we can pick out any signal from the noise. Unless one of you can make a very clear and understandable complaint, it's unlikely that admins will take any action. From what I can understand of the above arguments, both of you seem to have some rationale for your positions. You should continue to use the talk page and try to persuade others. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, will do as suggested. noclador (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: No action at this time. Please continue to discuss and try to get the opinions of more editors. Focusing on the Turkey issue might be the easiest. Admins are not likely to issue any blocks unless there is an obvious talk page consensus which the other editor is refusing to accept. It is hard to see that the talk page has reached any definite conclusion on these matters. EdJohnston (talk) 16:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

IP Range 78.177.41.127 reported by User:Wikicious (Result: Wrong wiki)

Page: Vajinismus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 78.177.41.127 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://tr.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Vajinismus&oldid=9152091

• 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:
The given IP user uses this article for commercial purpose adding their links to end of article. Given links for CISEAD in subject article is Assosiation for purpose of enlightening people about this phsycological problem, no commercial purposes. The IP I'm complaining deleted links of CISEAD as I deleted their links because of commercial purpose. Also I know that CISEAD had applied and gave licenses for usage of their resources in Misplaced Pages.

• Declined I'm sorry but we cannot help here with problems at the Turkish Misplaced Pages. You will need to find the correct page at tr.wikipedia.org to report the matter. CIreland (talk) 13:57, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Vyx reported by User:Eraserhead1 (Result: Blocked, 24h)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 0th revert (outside 24 hours):
• 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:

• Blocked for 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Pensionero reported by User:Hittit (Result: 1 month)

Page: Pomaks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Bulgarians in Turkey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Original version Pomaks: Original version Bulgarians in Turkey:

Article Pomaks

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

Article Bulgarians in Turkey

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

Diff of edit warring / Tendentious editing : Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User:Pensionero has a recent ban due to egaging in an edit war. He has been involved in numerous reverts and tendentious editing, he has been warned on the talk page by me and other editors. Above examples of countless reverts within in 24 hours on two separate articles. Such behaviour cannot be tolerated.

Please before blocking view edit history I reverted twice in the both articles User:Pensionero 19:27 24 March 2011 (UTC) In Bulgarains in Turkey i reverted here and here , In Pomaks: here and here User:Pensionero 19:36 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month. Pensionero has made 11 reverts at Pomaks since 16 March, and his edits are very contentious. This is clear from a viewing of Talk:Pomaks, where nobody supports him. He has been blocked twice for edit warring since February, most recently for 3 days. His own talk page holds a dozen warnings from many different editors. The Pomaks are an ethnic minority in Bulgaria. I am notifying Pensionero of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBMAC. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:98.254.83.35 reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result: )

Page: The Yankee Doodle Mouse (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 98.254.83.35 (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: and

Comments:
User wanted to insert this content while the page was protected, was told it did not meet verifiability requirements, in addition to being original research. Started edit-warring to insert it as soon as the page protection was lifted. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

User:174.54.34.187 reported by User:Malik Shabazz (Result: )

Page: Tim Wise (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.54.34.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

That was not a resolution of the dispute, you have been ignoring the consensus of multiple other editors for quite some time in order to whitewash (ironic isn't it?) the article. 174.54.34.187 (talk) 02:41, 25 March 2011 (UTC) Comments:

I was not edit warring, I was reverting vandalism and censorship from 2 editors with an obvious ideological bias. THEY reverted me and continued to remove sourced information. These editors do not WP: OWN this page and should stop wiki lawyering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.54.34.187 (talk) 02:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

User:Memills reported by Viriditas (talk) (Result: )

Page: Evolutionary psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 03:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 19:48, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420368667 by Logic prevails (talk) See the book "Evolutionary Psychology" by Gaulin & McBurney -- there is stuff to back up "this crap"")
2. 20:58, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420371707 by Logic prevails (talk) Don't revert again -- getting close to vandalism. This is sourced, the same material appears in several evol psyc textbooks.")
3. 21:02, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420372055 by Logic prevails (talk) Way overstated -- and the ref is over 35 years old. Take this to Talk page if you like.")
4. 21:17, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420382776 (talk) It is uncontroversial that there is a correlation between bipolar disorder & creativity. Do a literature search, or read the refs provided.")
5. 23:37, 23 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420402788 by (talk) Do your own homework - read the friendly references. And, don't delete the entire section if you have an issue with a sentence.")
6. 17:27, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420495673 by Logic prevails (talk) Per the Talk page, this is sourced info convered in two EP textbooks. Add counter perspectives if you wish, don't delete.")
7. 17:28, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420499767 by Maunus (talk) Sourced, relevant info. Edit if you wish, don't delete. Deletions of sourced info are approaching vandalism.")
8. 17:54, 24 March 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 420523836 by (talk) Discussed on the Talk page, without consensus. Again, fully sourced material from evolutionary psych textbooks. Edit it. We need to go to arbitarion if there is another revert.")

Note: In the last 24 hours, long-time contributor Memills (talk · contribs) reverted eight times on evolutionary psychology, reversing the efforts of at least two different editors (User:Logic prevails and User:Maunus). Memills is aware of the edit warring problem, as the article was fully protected due to previous edit warring approximately one month ago. Just several days ago, Memills himself said on the talk page that "suggestions to reduce edit wars on this page would be greatly appreciated." I would therefore like to address Memills query and suggest a nice long block. Viriditas (talk) 03:38, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Viriditas has a penchant for wikilawyering, hounding, and is the subject of 162 user complaints. A search of her username on the evolutionary psychology Talk page shows a series of unhelpful and uninformed comments.

Had she been following the discussion, she would have noted that editors in conflict have already reached a compromise to deal with the issue on the Talk page, and are already working together collaboratively to deal with the section in contention (see the bottom of the section linked in this sentence). Memills (talk) 04:04, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring