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 21:00, 15 June 2009 editShell Kinney (talk | contribs)33,094 edits →Reddi reported by Yilloslime (Result: ): comment← Previous edit Revision as of 21:02, 15 June 2009 edit undoNableezy (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers56,155 editsNo edit summaryNext edit →
Line 1,093: Line 1,093:
: Apologies, my memory failed with 1. It isn't a revert, just unjustified page blanking. ] <small>]</small> 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC) : Apologies, my memory failed with 1. It isn't a revert, just unjustified page blanking. ] <small>]</small> 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
:: It therefore seems that this editor has been quite careful in going up to the limit twice (if not beyond on the first occasion) in recent days. I'd appreciate a note from a neutral party placed on their page, and a reminder that the second R in 3RR isn't "Right". ] <small>]</small> 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC) :: It therefore seems that this editor has been quite careful in going up to the limit twice (if not beyond on the first occasion) in recent days. I'd appreciate a note from a neutral party placed on their page, and a reminder that the second R in 3RR isn't "Right". ] <small>]</small> 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==

* Page: {{article|Palestinian refugee}}
* User: {{userlinks|Boatduty177177}}

<!-- In the section below, link to a version from before all the reverting took place, and which proves the diffs are reverts by showing material the same or similar to what is being reverted to. -->

* Previous version reverted to:

<!-- In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed -->

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

<!-- For more complex cases, it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert, or the actual words that are being changed. Adjust your report as necessary -->

<!-- Warn the user if you have not already done so -->
* Diff of 3RR warning:

<!-- Add any other comments and sign your name (~~~~) here -->
Introducing disputed terms and changing the meaning of a fully cited sentence without any discussion. I asked the user to take his concerns to the talkpage, both in edit summaries and his user talk page, editor just reverts again. ] (]) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:02, 15 June 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)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    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
    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)
    1155 1156 1157 1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164
    1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174
    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
    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:TheTennisObserver reported by Thatcher (Result: 24h each)

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

    Edit warring over the insertion of the text that Federer is widely considered to be the greatest tennis player ever. This has been running for several days. Other editors' behavior is also poor but this is the first clear 3RR violation I spotted, there may be more. He posts explanations to the talk page but does not participate in discussion or seek consensus. Thatcher 19:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    2009-06-09T20:01:58 Redvers (talk | contribs | block) m (70,333 bytes) (Changed protection level for "Roger Federer": Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 20:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)) (indefinite))) - wouldn't be my favoured solution; you may want to contact the protecting admin if you'd prefer blocks William M. Connolley (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    His comment on ANI is to allow time to sort out the possible sock puppets. Hopefully someone will do that. Ordinarily I would prefer to block the individual accounts as well. Thatcher 20:38, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    I've read ANI, unprotected, blocked, and left a note to R William M. Connolley (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Zohair9034 reported by Thatcher (Result: 24h)

    Edit warring on Roger Federer with TheTennisObserver. Same diffs, just follow the history. Thatcher 19:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

    Page protected by another admin. <em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#6600CC">Nja</em><sup><em style="font-family:Trebuchet MS;color:#63D1F4">247</em></sup> 21:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
    Unprot; block. See above William M. Connolley (talk) 22:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)</rev></revisions></page></pages></query><query-continue><revisions rvstartid="296478129" /></query-continue></api>

    Letmroll reported by HarlandQPitt (Result: )

    HarlandQPitt (talk) 05:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Discedit reported by Omar Rodriguez(Result: )

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Satanic_Satanist&diff=295652883&oldid=295624911 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Satanic_Satanist&action=history

    Guy keeps reverting the page, mainly the tracklist. Now the tracklist layout I have chosen seems to be widely used on wikipedia and I think more aesthetically pleasing to the eye. With the grey and white lines instead of just being blank. Also put song lengths on for the songs that are available. But this guy keep reverting it. The layout should stay, and I don't see a problem with the track lengths staying because that is how long they are. I don't know why this guy has some problem with that.

    Tried asking why and disputing it with him but got no response. So?

    NicoBolso reported by Miacek (Result: )

    Tedious edit-warring by Nicobolso, as evident from the page history, pretty much of one against all battle (read:POV-pushing aka WP:TEDIOUS)

    Repreatedly removing Peronism from the ideology position from the infobox, with no rationale at talk page apart from personal sentiments. I've presentd some scholarly links for him to read, to no avail.

    Instead, the user has added cn-tagged social democracy into the infobox (a patently nonsensical move, repeated a number of times , ), and even Fascism with such edits (, ). Well, this is close to vandalism.

    • a typical revert , similar ones: , etc.

    Note that he has not broken the 3 RR rule, but such pointless edit warring /personal POV pushing /OR warrants some sanctions.

    It seems other participants of the 'dipute' have long given up, since there's no point arguing with users who fail to produce a single academic source to support their sentiments. --Miacek (t) 10:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Update on June 12: and he's going on with his pov-pushing: . I'm more and more thinking that we have a disruption only account involved here ;-) --Miacek (t) 11:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Update vol. 2. Still non-consensual destructive changes with absolutely zero scholarly basis for so abrupt moves: , . --Miacek (t) 14:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    TJ Spyke reported by Scorpion0422 (Result: misc prot)


    Oleg Prudius
    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games
    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:


    • Diff of 3RR warning: No warning, but as his block log shows, he is well aware of 3RR (actually, considering how many times he has been blocked and still edit wars, perhaps he's not). He did also receive an edit warring warning yesterday

    It's not clear cut vandalism, so it's a content dispute. Even when one assumes good faith, this user has violated 3RR on two seperate articles within 24 hours. -- Scorpion 15:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    This report looks like someone trying to settle a grudge. Anyway, Seddon (talk | contribs | block) m (8,844 bytes) (Protected Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)) (expires 03:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)))) and I've semi'd the other William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Yaf reported by User:Verbal (Result: prot)

    Gun violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 11:12, 10 June 2009 (edit summary: "rv; no consensus to include non-relevant data")
    2. 19:05, 10 June 2009 (edit summary: "rv to last version by Anastrophe (removing non-related data better suited for Violence article)")
    3. 16:07, 11 June 2009 (edit summary: "restoring to version by Anastrophe, removing non-related data")
    4. 16:54, 11 June 2009 (edit summary: "rv; total homicide data is irrelevant to gun violence; rm irrelevant data")

    —Verbal chat 17:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    2009-06-11T16:54:18 Tanthalas39 (talk | contribs | block) m (13,858 bytes) (Protected Gun violence: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)) (expires 16:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)))) - dunno why; you'll have to take that up with T William M. Connolley (talk) 17:38, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    Bosonic dressing reported by TownDown (Result: 48 hours for reporter)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Rule violation in articles South Africa, Democratic Republic of the Congo‎, South America, Sudan, Mauritania, Egypt. Also the user used words like "that is all", "acknowledged", "inexplicable styles", or "encourage you to get feedback" to me.--TownDown 21:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    Nominating editor blocked – for a period of 48 hours Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Dbachmann reported by 129.10.104.191 (Result: No vio)

    And the list goes on

    This editor felt the need to remove everything from the page but did not give a reason or provide a source. Another * User: Dougweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)who has had his edits reverted, left a message for this one to come and make all these edits because I guess he figure (admins do not have to apply by the rules so he can get an admin to go his dirty work. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Dbachmann&diff=295818592&oldid=295814185

    Those edits are not reverts... they include a page move and editing his own version of the article. Doesn't appear to be anything to these claims. DreamGuy (talk)
    No violation Reporter doesn't appear to grasp concept of "reverting". Black Kite 23:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:129.10.104.191 is User:Gloriamerrier: , William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


    User:Rhyging reported by User:MatthewVanitas (result: 24h)

    • Previous versions reverted to:

    After I cleaned up and copyedited the article, removing NPOV comments, purple prose ("avenging angel", "unstoppable", etc), this user continues to revert WP-standard formatting and edits, with the third revert from an IP address. This is apparently his pet article (same as his username) and he's refusing to learn or follow WP conventions for tone, NPOV, format, etc. MatthewVanitas (talk) 04:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    24h. Cr*p report, BTW. Use the form William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Britneysaints reported by Ed Fitzgerald (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    User:Britneysaints removed an image from the article Louise Brooks multiple times, citing an IfD discussion from December, the actual result of which was to keep the image. While one participant did express the opinion that the image should be removed from this article - that was not, however, the verdict of the closing admin. This was pointed out to Britneysaints in edit summaries, and in a talk page comment, which he was asked to discuss, but instead he reverted again. Britneysaints has a history of not discussing his edits and deleting comments from his talk page with dismissive and borderline-NPA edit summaries (see ,,, for example). Britneysaints is well aware of the 3RR rules, having been blocked once for edit-warring, and warned about it numerous times (,,) - but Britneysaints is apparently "not afraid of sanctions". Ed Fitzgerald t / c 07:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    24h. I believe that it is possible to interpret the references to IFD as meaning "I repeat my opinions there", but Bs should be joining you on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Gobananasman AND User:79.121.174.249 reported by User:79.97.105.2 (Result: warned)



    • Diff of 3RR warning: 
    79.97.105.2 (talk) 12:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Poor report (hint: user names are case sensitive), and very low quality edit warring. But the missing 4th revert above should be a bit of a hint to you. All sides cautionned to avoid edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Kurfürst reported by User:Dapi89 (Result: more info)

    User keeps lying on edit summary: "primary sources removed" he says, in each revision he removes Pric, spick and other secondary authors

    User has been blaocked 8 or 9 times, three times recently for 3RR. Dapi89 (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    I cannot see four reverts anywhere. Copyrighted images used without permission from National Archives, Kew, UK linked from a website were removed once and then reverted 2 times, and also because the article draws conclusion from these primary sources regarding which an administrator noted that such sources cannot be used in articles to draw conclusions based on them.
    A sentence referenced to Green/Price, but actually being a forbidden synthesis as neither sources state the conclusion drawn in the article, was removed once and then reverted once. This hardly violates the 3RR. The issue is currently under BRD process on the talk page of the article. Kurfürst (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Pft. None of that's true. People are not blind. They can see for themselves. And there is a BRD on the article because of your revert warring. Dapi89 (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Please note that the reporting editor has been blocked several times for edit warring and personal attacks against my person, and it is also visible from his 'edits' on the linked article. His reporting only serves as an other mean to pursue this purpose. Kurfürst (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Nonsense. Nine blocks for you Kurfurst, 4 or 5 for personal attacks "and harrasment"- once indefintely - you had this reduced to a month on the promise of better behaviour - who do you think you're kidding. If you think you are going to deflect attention from your 3RR you are mistaken. Dapi89 (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Please note that the indef block was issued by an administrator who was involved in a heated DRP, and was revised by another administrator who disagreed with his decision; the original admin then apologized for his error and admitted he was too involved. The version told by Dapi89 is simply made up, as are his other accusations. Please also note that Dapi89 publicly admitted to stalk me, and this is exactly what he is doing here. Kurfürst (talk) 13:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Rubbish. Stalking? This individual has tried to get a recently created article, the Battle of Belgium deleted. This is stalking, and just demonstrates the vicious nature of his "complaints". Nothing he says can be taken seriously. As for the B.S about this apology, he was unblocked by other editors on the understanding that if he made the same violations again, he would be blocked for good. This guy cannot be believed - about anything. If you think you are going to deflect attention from your 3RR you are mistaken. Dapi89 (talk) 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Here's another 3RR violation from the past day: , , , (at Bombing of Wieluń). And here's an almost 3RR violation from the same period at Strategic bombing during World War II (4 revs in 25h): , , and . I support a long cooling down period for this and other types of disruption. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 14:51, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    I can count only three reverts, not a violation of 3RR, and take note that these are additions of referenced sources (it is the consensus version formed on the talk page) some Polish editors continue to remove but refuse to take part in any of the disccussions. Also take note that Piotrious is trying tries to use the admins noticeboard to 'win' instead of trying to discuss it on the said articles talk page. Take note that there is a strong evidence showing coordination between these three Polish editors. Kurfürst (talk) 15:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    I'm not polish. Dapi89 (talk) 15:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Nobody said you are, I am making reference to the editors Piotrious edits strangely coincide all the time: Loosmark, Radeksz, Jacurek. And lets see what 'edits' by them were reverted: removal of cited statements from secondary sources, removed only because they were not anti-German enough, commented like 'removed the nonsense POV', 'per Loosmark's edit summary' (ie. nonsense POV), 'UNDID Kurfürst's POV version'. Great, constructive edits indeed. Kurfürst (talk) 15:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Not clear why the first edit is a revert. Nonetheless all sides (but particularly K) cautionned to avoid edit warring William M. Connolley (talk) 21:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    William Allen Simpson reported by User:Debresser (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This user has asked me specifically not to post on his talk page in this diff.

    The user previously changed the text of this policy as he saw fit, in a way diverging from emerging consensus on the talk page. I polished the English and removed the controversial part. Now this user has reverted me three times. Please also notice that I left an extensive explanation on the talkpage, to which User:William Allen Simpson has not replied (so far). Debresser (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC) In this diff another user seems to agree with me (reverting the last revert of William Allen Simpson) and telling him in the edit summary that he doesn't own this page. Debresser (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    I might add that I have brought it to the attention of William Allen Simpson at more than one occasion, that he is trying to own certain parts of Misplaced Pages. (see e.g. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive541#More_out_of_process_category_renames near the end. Apart from that he has recently received a 3rd level warning for incivility here. Debresser (talk) 13:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    See also User_talk:Aervanath#Advice_needed and Misplaced Pages:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_10#Category:Islamic_travel_writers for a start of editors getting worried about other things this editor is doing without any consensus whatsoever. Debresser (talk) 13:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Amusingly, apparently Debresser was also posting here while I was preparing the following entry. This was not here at the time that I began editing my entry. Note that Debresser does not claim 3RR was exceeded by me, and has no referencing supporting his claim that he has followed procedure.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Surely you've exceeded 3RR now, after reverting the whole package of improvements yet again? At least come to the talk page and discuss like we've been doing, instead of turning this into an unnecessary fight.--Kotniski (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    He has now added a 4th revert: . Isn't it a defiance of all rules to make another revert after he has already been posted here? I will not undo his revert now, since discussion is ongoing, but I'd appreciate any outside editor doing so. Debresser (talk) 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 21:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Debresser and Kotniski reported by William Allen Simpson (Result: hopeless)



    Tag team warring by two editors against myself.

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


    The first user, Kotniski, made a series of 4 changes to this policy page a week ago, without prior discussion; promptly reverted (revert; do not change English language conventions, do not change capitalizations, do not remove html comments documenting previous decisions, and do not make changes without discussion!)

    The second user, Debresser, made a change contrary to long established policy (the 1st revert listed above), apparently after a few hours of notice on the Talk page. Other minor changes were included that mask the major reverts.

    The principle (and repeated) edit is changing "shall" to "should", and removing entirely: "Each should have "Misplaced Pages" (without a colon) as part of the name; exceptions are granted through Categories for Discussion."

    The current policy was recently confirmed by discussion at WP:CFD. That discussion was also given concurrent notice on the Talk page, and a discussion over several weeks.

    Kotinski took the opportunity to revert to his 4 changes of a week ago, and then continued restoring Debresser's changes after Debresser hit 3RR.

    NOTE: Debresser made a considerable number of changes to administrative category names without bringing them to WP:CFD, including those for WP:CFD itself, and brought a complaint here to WP:ANI when responsible administrators reverted his changes. He has taken a strong personal interest in circumventing the naming procedures. Removing shall is just one part of his effort.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    This is a policy page, that specifies:

    If you wish to propose a new or modified category-related naming convention, please do so on Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (categories), while also publicising the proposal at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions, Requests for comment, and the Village Pump, as well as at any related pages.

    Changes are almost always the result of extensive discussion at WP:CFD, with all significant changes also {{cfdnotice}} as described above.

    Editors proposing even trivial changes leave a notice on the Talk page, wait 2 weeks until the discussion is over and archived by the Bot, and then make the change. For example, the very responsible Vegaswikian

    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • I think you need to calm down and join in the discussion on the talk page instead of wasting your efforts on reports like this. It simply isn't the case that every trivial change to a policy page needs two weeks' notice. Such changes are made all the time, and are highly desirable, particularly on pages as badly written as this one. Reverting obvious improvements just becase consensus wasn't explicitly gained beforehand wastes everyone's time and smacks of WP:OWNership.--Kotniski (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The page is not badly written. As noted above, do not change English language conventions, do not change capitalizations, do not remove html comments documenting previous decisions. Policy pages are not your playground.
      --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    In my defense: I am not a team with User:Kotniski. This can be verified by examination of our talkpages. I must admit I felt a certain gratification when User:Kotniski unexpectedly backed me up.

    William Allen Simpson likes to answer to complaints by filing a countercomplaint which is usually dismissed as baseless. See e.g. Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_alerts/archive64 where I complained about him (resulting in him receiving a 3rd level warning for incivility), after which he complained about me (for which he was scolded and summarily dismissed). He has brought me and other editors who disagree with his edits to wp:ani more than once. Somebody needs to explain to this editor that he doesn't own Misplaced Pages and that he can't have it his way every time. Likewise that making accusations is not a way to settle a disagreement. Debresser (talk) 14:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    As to the point: the point is not who is right. The point is wp:3rr.

    As not to the point: William Allen Simpson has been making up all kinds of rules lately, which he then adds without consensus to guidelines and calls policies, and then starts imposing on other editors. In his present arguments the attentive reader will discern a few of them. Neither do I understand why he claims (by implication) that only he knows English, wp:mos and other Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines. I for one have shown him recently that one of his assertations was based on a misunderstanding of the text (which I assume with growing effort to be in good faith). Debresser (talk) 15:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    You can't report teams, only individual people. And contiguous edits count as one. And you've broken 3RR yourself William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Dario D. reported by Atama (Result:)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    I hesitate to fill out this report but I think at this point it's best. This behavior has taken place during a content dispute at iPhone, where Dario D. feels that it's necessary to insert a criticism section into the article. That discussion is currently taking place on the talk page, but in the midst of this discussion the editor inserted his criticisms into the article. There is actually no objection to his entire edit, but the placement of the criticisms and the inclusion of a Moconews reference has been questioned. So far he has reverted the changes made by 3 different editors to his writing. As I write this he has not yet reverted the last change made but he has still continued to be antagonistic.

    On the iPhone talk page Dario D. has shown aggressive behavior. He has called people who disagree with him "deliberately ill-natured" and despite the fact that a discussion was ongoing, stated early on that he was "going to put the IPhone crits back up once I've worked on them more, and added important things" with the explanation that he was "making the changes because I'm plenty convinced enough that your side of the argument has ALL of the explaining to do".

    When I left the 3RR warning on his page, stating that at the time I wasn't planning on reporting him to this board, and asking him just to not edit-war while we were still trying to come to an agreement about the content, he replied on my talk page stating that they were "the most biased actions I've seen on Misplaced Pages to date". Indeed I didn't want to notify this board to avoid the appearance that I was trying to "shut up" someone who was disagreeing with me, and didn't want my actions to be seen as biased. I replied to him on his page trying to explain why I left the warning and again expressing my desire to come to an understanding. His response was to call my words "BS" and to challenge me to report him. He furthermore accused the iPhone (and iPod Touch) article of being an "Apple investor hangout" and saying that everyone who disagreed with him was "ruthlessly hawking this article since at LEAST early 2008". He went on to accuse another person who disagreed with him as getting involved as "retaliation for making you look like an absolute moron on IRC".

    I'd rather just get this matter settled but this edit-warring is getting in the way, and frankly so are the accusations laid against anyone who disagrees with Dario D. I'm no longer convinced that an amicable agreement can be reached here. -- Atama 19:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    I would refute these points, except that I actually think all of my quotes here help make the case that I have a LOT of valid things to say about every aspect of this. I'm absolutely certain that any administrator here who looks into the dispute will side with me (not talking about the 3RR thing. I've never even heard of that). That's why I encouraged Atama to file this complaint in the first place; because the most frustrating part of all of this has been trying to get unbiased outside opinions, from people who don't hawk the IPhone/IPod Touch articles. I filed for ThirdOpinion, and RequestForComment, and got 1 neutral POV, and one person who commented on something else, then left. - As for 3RR, I've never known about a revert-limit, except that I was/am/and-will-continue-to-be convinced that my reverts were justified, because someone axed what I wrote without any kind of solid explanation, and I had one... and then they STILL tried to pretend that *I* had the burden of proof.-- 20:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    H2H has 4 clear reverts. D has 3 today but one well past 24h. He is nonetheless cautionned to read and understand WP:3RR; none of the defence above is valid William M. Connolley (talk) 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    It wasn't my intent to get H2H blocked for 3RR, though I suppose that going by the letter of the rules I understand why you did it. However, I'm confused; does Dario D.'s behavior not clearly show uncivil behavior and an unwillingness to compromise as outlined on WP:3RR? My understanding is that the Administrators' noticeboard wasn't supposed to simply count reverts like a scoreboard, but to help prevent disruptive editing in content disputes. Either way of course I accept whatever decision you make. -- Atama 21:42, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Here's the issues I have with Dario... I've dealt with the likes him several times through the years I've edited Misplaced Pages. And all of them can easily be summarized the following way: One-issue advocate. Doesn't have a deep history of editing on either the subject matter at-hand or in any articles that are part of the related WikiProject itself. Will grasp words like "discouraged" and will kick it up a few notches in order to mean something much more extreme, and work to the advantage of his cause. Will attempt to change the policies and idealogy so that they work in his favor, rather than to work under the guidelines and the spirit of the WikiProject. Will take WP:BOLD to the extreme level, and not work within the WikiProject. And, is usually screwed somehow by either the product or company, which is why he is so passionate about the issue. Earlier, we had one editor who wanted to re-define what a camera phone was, just so that the iPhone can be left out. I believe Dario either purchased the iPod touch, or know of someone close to him who did, and later found out first-hand his problem with the battery. I think he's treating Misplaced Pages as a soap box, which BTW WP:NOT does not allow.
    Even if Dario was right, his people skills deserves an "F-minus". I cannot believe that he claims to be a web page designer, because the content design concepts he keeps spewing out are totally wrong. He's basically treating Misplaced Pages articles like a tabloid web page he wants people to read and get out within just a few seconds; bring up the web page, read only the bad things about a product, and then walk away without actually understanding anything else about the product. As he claims that an article about a product should be different, let me remind everyone that even Consumer Reports does not write in the style he's pushing - and I'm a subscriber to that publication.
    The type of people who come to a web site looking for the bad stuff are those who have an agenda, such as an extreme right-winger looking at the Barack Obama article for only the negative stuff, or an Apple fanboy looking at a Microsoft Windows article and walk away thinking only about the security flaws. The spirit behind WP:CRIT is not to allow Misplaced Pages become a propaganda piece. Misplaced Pages does not exist in order to feed these kinds of people. The many blogs Dario keeps citing - those are the places people will go to read the criticisms about a product - NOT Misplaced Pages. Let the blogs spread the propaganda, and leave Misplaced Pages out of it.
    As long as he keeps incorrectly believing how people read and use Misplaced Pages articles, this problem will not be solved. I feel this one issue is the butt of the problem. groink 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Excuse me, but I just got unblocked (by expiration). I would like to point out that William M. Connolley wikilawyered 3RR: I had only reverted Dario twice, but was blocked for unrelated, non-edit warring reverts of unhelpful anonymous edits. (And just after I had un-semied the page, too!). I argued that I had not broken the spirit of 3RR, and they said, "too bad, you edit warred anyway". Which would be fine - Atama suggested 1RR - except the blocking was inconsistent. Dario reverted three' times, but was he blocked? No. I was not blocked for edit warring, as 3RR is meant to do, I was blocked for being helpful: . I would like to know where I went wrong (i.e., more than unblocked Dario). HereToHelp 22:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    they said, "too bad, you edit warred anyway" - no: I said what I say to anyone who asks: agree to stick to the rule in future and leave the article alone for your block and you can be unblocked William M. Connolley (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yes, you did offer me that opertunity, which I chose not to take. My point was more basic: after exposing that I had not violated the spirit of 3RR, the block was not lifted as erroneous, so there must have been reason to keep it in place. Asking me to "stick to the rule in the future" implies that a rule was broken.--HereToHelp 22:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    I'd just like to throw in my two cents here as someone who has watched Dario D. and the situation with the iPhone article unfold. The aforementioned user seems to be the troublemaker here. While absolutely having no other users agree that his agenda was appropriate or that his edits should be used in the article, Dario D. has refused to accept that he is clearly going against consensus. HereToHelp has been doing nothing but enforcing that consensus (in conjunction with removing unrelated junk edits and vandalism from the article), and I fail to see how his actions have warranted a block. Brian Reading (talk) 12:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    (unindent) I think I found the problem. We used the wrong noticeboard to report this problem. The issue we have is NOT an edit war. The issue we have is a misunderstanding, on the part of Dario, of the policies and overall concept of Misplaced Pages. The 3RR business is just a byproduct of the misunderstanding. This is why WMC is only looking at this issue from a 3RR perspective. We should probably open an issue at WP:VILLAGE, and let the admins and others there tell Dario and the rest of us how articles should be structured. groink 22:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    I take full responsibility for any mistakes made. I have never used the Administrators' noticeboard and I felt that Dario D. was in violation of everything being mentioned at WP:3RR. But as it looks like this was not the correct place to report this misbehavior I seem to have erred. Dario D. has not had any activity since this notification was posted and I can only hope that when he does become active he won't repeat what he has been doing. -- Atama 19:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Jacobkiper reported by User:Hippo43 (Result: Already Blocked)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    As far as I can tell, Jacobkiper is only really interested in this article, and one other (Pat Forde, which also concerns the Courier-Journal). IMO, the material he wants to add is not consistent with WP:NPOV, giving undue weight to this recent incident and this newspaper's involvement. In my zeal to stop this, I have also got a little over-excited here, and have probably broken 3RR myself. --hippo43 (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    Already blocked Mifter (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
    Page protected Mifter (talk) 22:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Lanternix reported by Falastine fee Qalby (talk) (Result: 48h)

    Arab (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lanternix (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 02:11, 13 June 2009 (edit summary: "Not personal and not POV. You can check the section on Egyptian identity if you want to understand why these people are NOT Arabs (Egyptian idntity)")
    2. 02:42, 13 June 2009 (edit summary: "I made a change and I gave you what the reason is, if you don't like it you can discuss it, and yes Egyptian identity does preclude Arab one, and this is what Egyptian identity explains")
    3. 04:44, 13 June 2009 (edit summary: "very funny, maybe you should read the article about Egyptian identity again, The overwhelming majority of Egyptians have nothing to do with Arabs, and neither do these 2 people")
    4. 05:07, 13 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Population */ Here are the real Arabs")

    —Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    The last one is clearly NOT a reversion. I left one of the disputed photos and replaced the other with another photo. --Lanternix (talk) 12:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    Lanternix (talk) edits are against common consensus. I reverted his initial edit stating my reason (which was that an Egyptian identity didn't preclude an Arab one). Instead of him discussing the issue on the talk page, he undid my revert. I suggested taking it to the talk page but he wouldn't. Other users reverted his edits but to no avail. He just wouldn't discuss the matter. After he was warned for the 3RR violation, he went and did a new revert on the page. That's 5 reverts in a 24 hour period. Xevorim (talk) 13:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Again, the last changes are not reverts but rather new changes to the page. You and FFQ are the ones who are simply reverting all edits, including those aimed at reaching a compromise. And you are the one asking for a discussion, and thus the burden of initiating this discussion falls on you not on me. If you begin a discussion on the talk page, I will surely respond there. --Lanternix (talk) 13:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Lanternix is continuing his edit warring.-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Falastine fee Qalby is continuing his edit warring. I am only trying to come up with some sort of compromise by finding photos of people who would unanimously qualify as Arabs, rather than disputed people. --Lanternix (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    Recent reverts

    1. 13:00, 13 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 296156606 by Xevorim (talk) vandalism? really?")
    2. 15:41, 13 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Population */ even better picture")
    3. 16:09, 13 June 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 296184330 by Falastine fee Qalby (talk) rv obvious disruption abd edit warring")

    —Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    These are not reverts. These are NEW photos being added to the article. Nice try though!

    --Lanternix (talk) 16:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    I don't know why would anyone argue that undoing another editor's action is not reverting... I think you know very well those are reverts. You even said "rv obvious disruption abd edit warring"!-Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Undoing another editor's action is reversion. Adding new photos to an article is NOT reversion. Continuously reverting another editor's additions even when this editor tries to reach a compromise is disruption, edit warring and hounding. --Lanternix (talk) 17:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Yeah that is right, maybe you should stop doing those actions. I don't understand what you don't get about the 3rr rule? I know you are not a fan of using the talk page, but you must use it to propose your "compromise". It is the the most civil, easiest way to have your opinion counted. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 17:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    I'm wondering the exact same thing about you. As for the talk page, it's certainly the most civil place to discuss matters. Maybe you should consider using it to explain your edit warring on Arab. --Lanternix (talk) 17:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    48h, obvious 3RR. If L is uncertain as to what constitutes a WP:REVERT, I advise him to err on the side of caution, ask an experienced admin, or better still prefer talk page discussion to resolve issues William M. Connolley (talk) 18:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Arcayne reported by User:MikeWazowski (Result: no vio)

    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert:
    • 6th revert:
    • 7th revert:
    • 8th revert:
    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Arcayne appears to have WP:OWN and WP:POINT issues with this article - it's not quite a 3RR issue, as he's very careful to run right up the limits of the guidelines - as has occurred in other instances, he refuses to accept any interpretation but his own on this article. After removing info he disagreed with (but found in the film), he refused to see reason. When another editor finally supplied a reliable source, Arcayne decided to just remove the information, even though other editors obviously disagreed. Now, he appears to be blindly reverting my contributions to the article, many of which have nothing to do with the original point. MikeWazowski (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Arcayne continues to edit war on the article. Warned now, as he is at 3RR. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    Actually, Mike is more than a little confused here. He seems to think that counting all the recent edits - regardless of the 24 hour period period - counts. Were that the case, Mike's had a few confrontational, edit-warring edits of his own (1, 2, 2, 3, 4). While my edits serve to improve the article, removing bad grammar, bloat, etc. Mike seems to be simply reverting all of his edits in. He's been asked to use the discussion page, and he has avoided that, except to take WP:POINTY jabs at me, and tossing disruptive template warnings onto user talk pages, and edit-warring with another user over that, as well. - Arcayne () 21:23, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Arcayne's grasp of "truth" is tenuous. I added all the previous edits to show that this a pattern covering several days, and that he appears to be gaming the system in regards to 3RR. He's certainly fixated on one particular version of the article, and will stop at nothing to get it. His first diff was my initial contribution - technically a revert, but not part of a war. The second and third diffs are unrelated edits, not having anything to do with the subject of discussion. Fourth is a revert, and the firth is a fix to restore some copyedits Arcayne made that I agree with. So if you want to get technical, there's really only one revert between us, discounting the first edit I made. His edits today have removed every contribution I made today, out of what appears to me to be spite. I fairly warned him about his 3RR status, so that's hardly disruptive. I haven't engaged in any other edit wars, so that claim is false as well. MikeWazowski (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    Actually mike, your grasp of what is truth, is tenuous, not his, as, in regards to the version stated to be reverted to, the first revert is unrelated, as is #3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
    Really, the reverts should be grouped together as they are together, not as the same material, which you make it out to be, when it isn't:
    First Group:
    First:
    Second:
    Third:
    Second Group:
    First:
    Second:
    Third Group:
    First:
    Second:
    First(slight deviation in edits):
    Second:
    So far, the only spite appears to be coming from your end, Mike.— Dædαlus 22:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    No vio William M. Connolley (talk) 08:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    user:Storm Rider reported by DoyleCB (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    In addition to engaging in an edit war, Storm Rider appears to have WP:OWN and WP:POINT issues with this article - it's not quite a 3RR issue, as he's very careful to run right up the limits of the guidelines - as has occurred in other instances, he refuses to accept any interpretation but his own on this article. After removing info he disagreed with (but is still referenced and citable), he refused to compromise with those who he is personally attacking on the talk page. When another editor finally supplied a reliable source, Storm Rider decided to just remove the information because he found it to be irrelevant. Now, he appears to be blindly reverting my contributions to the article, many of which have nothing to do with the original point. Storm Rider admittedly does not like when editors try to point to a Mormon connection with West Ridge Academy, something all of his reverts and edits have reflected. --DoyleCB (talk) 21:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

    Nurefsan reported by Arnoutf (Result: Stale )


    • Previous version reverted to:
    Note since that time incremental constructive edits were made by user:Dawud


    • 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:


    This is a rather complex case, where the article has been plagued by this same, highly POV version, filled with unreliable (propaganda) sources for almost a year. Most editors inserting the materials have been recognised and blocked as sockpuppets of Philscirel.

    The current (new) editor, Nurefsan, most likely (in my opinion) is a Philscirel sock and has been reported as such on June 9th . However, no response is provided by the sockpuppet clerks, and the editor continues disruptive editing.

    I have been reverting quite frequently, myself; but in the light of the articles history I think I am entitled to; in the light of the history of the article and its problems with sockpuppetry of this exact same type in combination with the history of Nurefsans contributions.


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    • My edits may seem edit warring in themself. However, on this specific page there has been an identical pattern of reinserting the exactly same old, highly biased version filled with unreliable sources has occurred before on this page. This has been done by sockpuppets of Philscirel for about a year. Nurefsan (as a new editor) chose as first ever edit to reinsert the last edit of a subsequently blocked Philscirel sockpuppet . Why would a new editor be familiar with a months old edit?
    • Editor Nurefsan has been reported as suspected sockpuppet June 9th, however that proces is very slow and has not yet yielded a conclusion <bt>
    • Several efforts by me to start a dialogue have been made to no response on Nurefsans talk page 2 sucesive entries before filed as sockpuppet and the article talk page (4 entries). As of yet only one response (today) where Nurefsan takes the position that he is willing to cooperate, if only we take his version as the starting point for future edits see here. Arnoutf (talk) 23:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
    • Stale - That said all parties should be aware that any further edits will result in a block. I encourage everyone to continue to discuss things on the articles talk page instead of reverting. Tiptoety 04:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Arnoutf reported by Nurefsan (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    Please see the edits from:

    • 1st revert:

    to:

    • 2nd revert:

    There have been 19 reverts by the user.


    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    Response by accused party: See case above; only after I notified Nurefsan that I had opened this case, was this case filed against me (seems a bit like an effort for a suicide bomb - so I go out, so does my enemy). Yes, I have made many reverts (of which I am not proud, see rationale in case Nurefsan reported by Arnoutf). I did not make 19 though. Other editors (in good standing, with long histories without block log) also reverted these edits. Arnoutf (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    DoyleCB reported by User:Storm Rider (Result: 24h)


    • Previous version reverted to:


    1. 1st revert: 01:21, 13 June 2009
    2. 2nd revert: 10:58, 13 June 2009
    3. 3rd revert: 14:15, 13 June 2009
    4. 4th revert: 14:57, 13 June 2009
    5. 5th revert: 15:01, 13 June 2009

    In addition, when this User was warned, they responded by placing warnings on my user page:

    1. 14:17, 13 June 2009 First warning abuse
    2. 14:26, 13 June 200 Second warning abuse
    3. 14:34, 13 June 2009 Third abuse
    4. 15:02, 13 June 2009 Fourth abuse


    This behavior is perceived as harassement. As you review the archive of the article talk page and the edit history, it is evident that this editor ignores all efforts at consensus building and/or discussion. I have enrolled other editors to assist, but nothing stops this editor from disrupting the effort to achieve consensus. --Rider 03:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Norw73 and Mariomassone reported by LeaveSleaves (Result: 24h each)

    For Norw73

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: and numerous others

    For Mariomassone

    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert: and numerous others

    Mariomassone reported the issue at help desk, but did not stop the edit war.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: ,

    I have warned both the users, but they are way past 3RR anyway. Sleaves 12:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Impressive high-speed edit warring. 24h each William M. Connolley (talk) 12:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Vandalizing Allen Collins

    User:Berean Hunter reported by User:R4Rvolunteer (Result: reporter warned)


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

    This is the text in dispute: In 1987, Allen Collins met Bill Massey, Jr., and together they co-founded Roll For Rock in loving memory of Ronnie Van Zant. Both young men had been paralyzed in the prime of their lives, and they wanted to help other people. Roll For Rock hosts benefit concerts and wheelchair sports events to raise awareness about spinal cord injury and to provide opportunities to those facing physical challenges. Roll For Rock also participates in medical research that is seeking a cure for spinal cord injury. Allen's dream was to use music as a way to educate all people about ways to flourish in life despite a physical challenge.

    This is factual information, it tells the world that Allen Collins was more than a drug fuelled degenerate, that he actually tried to right some wrongs before he died. Barean Hunter is accusing me of promoting, spamming, and using popups, I am doing NONE of those things. I simply want the facts on Allen's page and he has reverted my edit more than 12 times in 24 hours! Thank you very much for your help

    R4RvolunteerR4Rvolunteer (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Looks to me as though you are being reverted by multiple established editors. Please be warned that you risk being blocked; indeed you probably would have been if you we're so new. Please discuss this on the article talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Xenovatis reported by jd2718 (Result: 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to: This is user:Xenovatis' own version of January 12, 2009.


    • 1st revert: 14 June, 11:58 (marked as "restore")
    • 2nd revert: 14 June, 14:20 (marked "rv")
    • 3rd revert: 14 June, 16:28 (marked "don't remove WP:RS", restoring "Kanto" ref and phrase "of centuries or milleninia...")
    • 4th revert: 14 June, 16:48 (marked "added back WP:RS", restoring the same ref and phrase, while adding other mateiral)


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This is the first time I have encountered this editor, but he seems to have a significant history of skillful edit warring. In preparation for this report, I reviewed his recent contributions. Earlier today he added nice bit of turkish folklore an image of questionable sourceing, which he himself uploaded, of severed heads into Turkish Armed Forces, then edit warred, with inaccurate and insulting summaries (rvt mindless vandal, rv turkvandal, next time you will be reported and banned, to keep it there. I suspect I may be at the wrong noticeboard. Is there a better place to report this sort of edit warrior? Jd2718 (talk) 17:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Editor Js21658 did on several occasions remove WP:RS from the article in question. He then attempted to divert attention from this behavior by engaging me on a completely different article in which he was not hitherto involved and which he only accesed through shifting my contribution file after he began his edit war against my contributions to the article in question. Further editor Jd2782 did not warn me, as of this writting of his report.--Xenovatis (talk) 17:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Note: added time stamps and descriptions of reverts to above report. Confirming 3RR vio. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    It was not a violation of 3rr since it was (1) not a revert but only a partial edit of only a part of the article, (2) it was the readdition of WP:RS removed from the article in clear violation of WP policy. Can't say I am surprised to see FP here though.Xenovatis (talk) 17:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    Jd2718 and Xenovatis got into a dispute here but then Jd2718 brings it here instead of continuting the edit war. Xenovatis argues it is not 3RR; whether or not it is, he continued the edit war rather than trying to solve it; to the point of claiming it wasn't edit war/3RR. Users need to keep in mind that a lead is summary and hence if well written will need few if any refs and details. Refs and details go in the body. Result: 24 hour block on Xenovatis for edit warring. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Mets0907 reported by Darth Mike (Result: 24h)

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

    This user seems to only exist to place this image in the article. The user has been blocked for this behavior before: . The user refuses to discuss the changes with either edit summaries or talk pages. I have specifically asked the user to explain why they continually edit war and they are completely non-responsive. This is why I am reporting this before an actual three revert violation, but there is no doubt that the user will continually revert anyone who challenges them. The image in question is also a copyright violation and has been deleted a few times from commons already (and currently tagged for deletion by myself).-- Darth Mike  17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Disruptive editing, 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 18:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:FergusM1970 3RR violation on The Sergeants affair, reported by User:Mashkin

    • Disputed sentence: has been changing "an attack of an Arab bus" to "a failed attempt to destroy a bus carrying Arab civilians"
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert
    • 4th revert
    • Warning and request to revert that was ignored:

    Mashkin (talk) 22:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours Shell 01:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Hippo43 reported by Wrestlinglover (Result:Page protection )


    • Diff of 3RR warning:
    Alright, I did not place the diffs of reverts above because there are so many of them. Almost every edit by this user has been to undo my edit or remove something I had just placed in. I started a discussion with this user on his talk page at User talk:Hippo43#Undid. Also another discussion is under way at Talk:TNA X Division Championship. With this article being under a FAC review and was under a GA review. I would rather discuss all edits instead of being bold since this user clearly was not familiar with professional wrestling. Seeing as several edits done by this user violated the jargon, fiction, etc polocies. To not cause an edit war or problems. This user insisted to not just discuss and instead continued to edit after all messages in which I asked him to stop. I have notified the project which the article belongs to about this problem at WT:PW#Help. Maybe not in the correct matter I notified them, since my message was I guess too personnel, which was not my intention, I was in a hurry. Anyway, each time he stated certain guidelines allowed him to continue editing and not notify anyone of edits. Which he is correct about. But with controversial material he should quit after starting an edit war. I have also been involved in this edit war and if I have to be blocked as well. Then so be it. I am guilty. Also, the seeming edit war between myself and my friend user Bullet. That has been taken care of. He and I have come to an agreement on MNS to include the usage of world in the article. He is in the process of writing the sentences in a neutral matter while I'm in the process of finding extra references. For the entire edit war, please look through the history of the championship article here: . Also, some of my messages may violate WP:Civil]]. I've been in a bad mood recently and have taken it out on the wrong people. Hopefully that doesn't effect the decision much. I hardly ever mean to be uncivil.--WillC 23:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
    The discussion between us started here - Misplaced Pages:NORN#question_on_original_research. My only motive since then has been to remove a few cases of unreferenced commentary and original research. In our discussions, Will has been consistently patronising, though not really offensive. He has clearly put much work into this article, but seems to have ownership issues with it. He has asked me several times to seek his approval before making changes, which I'm not prepared to do. I don't really see it as an edit war - the discussion at the article talk page has been quite constructive As I've said elsewhere, if he can supply references for his statements I have no problem with the material in principle. --hippo43 (talk) 23:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

    Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Shell 01:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    I have given references multiple times but he does not either believe they are reliable, they are true, or wants more information than is possible to give so he removes them, and that is when I ask for him to ask someone who is knowledgeable in the field first i.e. me, the person who expanded the article from almost nothing. Whether the belt is a world title. Multiples titles do not have world in their name but are considered world championships. The belt is a prop and there is no higher power within wrestling, so the promotion gives world status. It has to only be called world championship once to be a world championship. It has also been defended world wide numerous times so it isn't like it isn't true. I have given an offline source for the first statement and if I knew of more statements I would also source them. A reliable ref directly to the company but he doesn't believe that is enough so he continues to remove it and the reference with it. As for the discussion he directed too, may I remind everyone that there was no consensus reached there that section was OR. Another article passed its GA review based on the same subject. I also opened a section at WT:PW#New GA that talked about that section and all users who involved themselves in it agreed it was not OR. I do not have ownership issues. I have issues that lead to the article having to fail its FAC review because the above user would not discuss all his problems, instead removed them continual and caused the stability to fail the criteria. That is why I seem a bit patronising. Two months of work on an article which lead to it having to wait two months for a GA review, then having your writting criticized. Afterwards having the article to fail a FAC on something you could not control, you would probably be as well. Though that was no reason for me to not remain civil I admit. Also none of the discussions have lead to anything good IMO.--WillC 01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    The edit war has now moved onto the List of TNA X Division Champions article. No dispute resolution is done. Just constance reverts by myself and Hippo. Best to just block us both and protect both articles now. This isn't going to end I fear.--WillC 03:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    You have both been Blocked Tiptoety 03:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    124.104.126.130 reported by Martinlc (Result:Blocked 1 week )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    There was a temporary block imposed on 11 June but user has continued to revert.

    The reason for others removing the user's content has been given on the article and user talk pages without response.

    Martinlc (talk) 09:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    • No apparent communication to warnings; nothing but reverts from this IP. Appears to be non-portable so block is unlikely to have collateral damage. Blocked for 1 week. Shell 13:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    203.171.99.99 reported by Magnius (Result: Page protected)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Disputed sources have resulted in an edit war. Resolution regarding the sources has been sought at Reliable Sources Noticeboard and user was requested to cease editing until a consensus could be reached, however user proceeded to revert once more. I have to confess that there is a possibiliy that I have breached 3RR myself, so accept adminstrator action against me if deemed appropriate, however, in my defence I have ceased editing and sought resolution via noticeboards. magnius (talk) 12:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    74.97.136.225 reported by Sesu Prime (Result: Blocked 24 hours )




    • Diff of 3RR warning:


    The IP user reverted the removal of an image containing four separate video game box arts and an additional image (Pokémon Crystal box art) twice, then reverted the removal of the Pokémon Crystal box art twice more. The IP user was told in an edit summary, "that violates WP:NFC, if you want to contest this, take your issue to the talk page" (). IP user ignored the non-free content violation warning and the invitation to discuss the issue on the talk page. The IP user was asked twice more in edit summaries to discuss the issue on the talk page (, }. The IP user has yet to discuss this issue on any talk page and blatantly ignores Misplaced Pages's non-free content policies, a possible copyright violation. -sesuPRIME  14:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Blocked – for a period of 24 hours

    User:Ryulong reported by User:Jpatokal (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 4th revert:
    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 5th revert:
    • Previous version reverted to:
    • 6th revert:

    Note: Page history is complex and confusing, as Yamanote and Shitamachi were separate articles that were history-merged today. Of the above, reverts #1-3 were done on Yamanote, #4 on Shitamachi, and #5-6 on the new merged version, all within 24 hours, so I presume this counts as at least 5RR.

    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    User is a former admin, and I'll note this edit (see the edit summary) without further comment. Jpatokal (talk) 15:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Jar1945 User:Jar1945a reported by User:Mrdthree (Result: No violation)

    http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Allen_Ginsberg&oldid=132163493

    • 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:


    Basically keeps adding the unsourced sentence: Ginsberg left the organization when he felt that his point on freedom of speech in America had been made.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: No single 3RR event occurred; edit war has taken place over years.
    • First attempt to discuss (no response):
    • Notify of edit war resolution to Jar1945:
    • Notify of edit war resolution to Jar1945a:

    I worked to write a consensus paragraph with other editors: . first post to discussion: In my edit notes and on a note to the user on his discussion page I have tried to get him to engage in discussion. I requested a citation for his claims. Jar1945/Jar1945a refuses to take part in discussion and keeps adding the unsourced statement: "Ginsberg left the organization when he felt that his point on freedom of speech in America had been made." Jar1945 persists in making the claim despite contrary evidence from the cited source . Mrdthree (talk) 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Jackiestud reported by MuZemike (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Edit warring over the addition of poorly-sourced material from a Misplaced Pages mirror to Ochre. MuZemike 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    See also the ANI discussion at

    —Dougweller (talk) 17:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    I should have added she has warned me also, but unless I've miscounted, I'm not at 3RR, something I try to avoid. So I shall probably leave her latest bad edit there for a while. Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    And despite the fact that her talk page and mine make it clear she has been told several times she must not copy and paste from other articles without attribution (discussed at ANI recently also), she continues to do so which was lifted from History of religions. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Cush reported by Lisa (Result: No violation)

    • First:
    • Second
    • Third

    The comment on the second revert demanded that I produce a source. When I did, he reverted again anyway, calling the source "an interpretation". However, that source is given in Yam Suph, and is not an interpretation. Furthermore, the article in question is called Passage of the Red Sea. Given two possible translations, it stands to reason that the one which is consistent with the article should be used. -Lisa (talk) 17:53, 15 June 2009 (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. Consider discussing the issue instead of continuing the edit war. Shell 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Amir mousavi reported by Kurdo777 (Result: Blocked 24 hours)


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Despite several warnings from several users , this user continues edit-warring to add original research, unverifiable/poorly-sourced statements, and libel claims to Mir-Hossein Mousavi, in violation of . He has also violated WP:3rr several times over. --Kurdo777 (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Reddi reported by Yilloslime (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


    • 1st revert:
    • 2nd revert:
    • 3rd revert:
    • 4th revert:
    • 5th revert: now reverting removal POV tag
    • Block log indicates user should be well aware of restrictions on edit warring.

    There's not a technical violation of the 3 revert rule here, we're looking at something like 5 or 6 reverts within about 2 days, BUT this user has a long history of warring as indicated by his block log, so think some action is warranted here. There is a strong consensus (5 editors by my count) against the changes that he alone is trying to force. Yilloslime C 18:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    • Note Appears to have stopped after the warning and is now discussing on talk. Leaving open for now and would suggest a lengthy block (based on block log) for any more reverting. Shell 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    User:Yaf reported by User:Verbal (Result: more info)

    Gun violence (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Yaf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

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

    1. 15:07, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Homicides by country */ fixing table per RfC consensus on talk page") Reverting against RfC and consensus to pre-protection version
    2. 15:16, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "fix the header before putting this column in; it is misleading to put it under "Intentional Firearm ..." header") Second revert
    3. 16:30, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "restoring RfC consensus version (see talk)") Third revert (warning placed)
    4. 16:59, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "/* Association with Urban Areas */ identifying population density problem") Reverting tag removal
    5. 18:21, 15 June 2009 (edit summary: "adding tag (see talk page)") Reverting tag removal
    • Diff of warning: here

    Also, series of personal attacks, accusations of "massive POV" editing, misrepresenting an RfC, and general WP:TE. —Verbal chat 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Note that this user was previously reported here for breaking 3RR, but the page was then protected (See above). Verbal chat 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    "1." was not a revert. It was formatting data, removing columnar data that the RfC consensus indicated should be removed, into a table format that did not ever exist previously, having been suggested during the RfC -- an RfC which I started, incidentally, to establish consensus. When the RfC consensus broke down, I tagged the sections as {{POV-section}} to identify remaining problems. Hence, "4." and "5." were likewise not reverts, the edits being simply used for identifying POV problems. Hence, the lack of "Previous version reverted to" links in this "report", since most of these edits were not actually reverts. User:Verbal is now continuing to disagree with RfC Consensus through wiki-stalking. Yaf (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    2, 3 and 5 are reverts. It isn't clear to me why 1 and 4 are William M. Connolley (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Apologies, my memory failed with 1. It isn't a revert, just unjustified page blanking. Verbal chat 20:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
    It therefore seems that this editor has been quite careful in going up to the limit twice (if not beyond on the first occasion) in recent days. I'd appreciate a note from a neutral party placed on their page, and a reminder that the second R in 3RR isn't "Right". Verbal chat 20:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Boatduty177177 reported by ] (Result: )


    • Previous version reverted to:


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


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Introducing disputed terms and changing the meaning of a fully cited sentence without any discussion. I asked the user to take his concerns to the talkpage, both in edit summaries and his user talk page, editor just reverts again. Nableezy (talk) 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

    Categories: