Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:20, 7 September 2009

• 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

User:Introman reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: 48h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Liberalism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Introman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

1 20:33, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Previous lead is much better. Restoring that.")

1 20:50, 2 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted unsourced remnant")

1 01:41, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "more sources for classical/social liberalism dinstinction, as well as source that says that the classification is common")

1 01:42, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

1 01:43, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

1 01:43, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

2 22:01, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Better vs of previous intro. Redid the 3rd paragraph, and gave MANY sources for the claim that Americans and Euros use "liberalism" differently, which Rick Norwood and Four Deuces have been disputing")

2 22:02, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "")

2 22:08, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "page #")

3 22:37, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Nonsense. Approximately this version of the intro was taken down without agreement.")

4 23:19, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "deleted original research assumption that Marcus Aurelius statement is representative of liberalism, much less that that it encapsulates liberalism such that it should head the whole article")

4 23:23, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Deleted statement about American Declaration of Independence. This article is about liberalism. Don't make it U.S. centric.")

4 23:30, 3 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "This claimed "elitism" branch of liberalism thing is not common, so doesnt belong in the intro.")

• Diff of warning:

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

Excluding consecutive edits, there were 4 reverts

-The Four Deuces (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Four Deuces is a disruptive editor. He tries to own articles. He deletes well sourced material. He wont accept sources so one has to keep adding more sources. No matter how many there are he won't accept them. The edits above speak for themselves. I gave good explanations of my edits, both in the edit summaries and through extensive discussion on the talk page. There was no 3 revert violation. Some of what he's claiming is a revert is a partial revert with major working of a whole paragraph and addition of many sources. My edits are constructive, not destructive. This noticeboard complaint by him is just another attempt by him to prevent me from editing articles. He's made several such reports. It's a pattern. Introman (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

48h. Next time (though hopefully there won't be one), could you arrange the diffs to just show the 4 reverts, if necessary bundling 3 consecutive edits into one? Thanks, William M. Connolley (talk) 08:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I will do that. Thank you for your patience. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Mister Hospodar reported by User:Skinwalker (Result: 48h)

Page: AIDS denialism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mister Hospodar (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: User has been blocked previously for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This single purpose editor is attempting to edit war tags and unsupported ideas into the article, and is soapboxing prodigiously on the talk pages. While he is not reverting to the exact old version each time, his behavior IMO is edit warring and needs admin attention. Skinwalker (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

48h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:71.195.10.41 reported by User:TheFarix (Result: 2 weeks)

Page: G-Saviour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 71.195.10.41 (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:

The IP editor has repeatedly added unsourced material to the article G-Saviour stating that it is not canon to the Gundam franchise dispute repeated warnings and a previously existing reference from the official Gundam website stating that it is part of the franchise. Even though the first revert is just outside of the 24h scope, it does show a pattern of edit waring by the editor. --Farix (Talk) 02:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

2 weeks William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:89.129.39.103 reported by User:RedCoat10 (Result: 24h)

Page: Gibraltar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Page: Gibraltarian people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 89.129.39.103 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gibraltar

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

Gibraltarian people

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article "Gibraltar" talk page:
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article "Gibraltarian people" talk page:

Comments:
IP refuses to discuss the matter and insists on blanket reverting. Needs to cool down. RedCoat10 • talk 14:22, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 15:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

User:89.129.48.78 reported by User:Justin_A_Kuntz (Result: pointless block)

Page: Gibraltar
User being reported: 89.129.48.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Not sure if a block is warranted but requesting admin overview. IP editor was blocked yesterday for edit warring and bad faith attacks on Gibraltar. The block is currently in place but IP editor is continuing to edit with a new IP address see . I might not have reported were it not for the fact that the IP returned with further bad faith attacks . If this continues perhaps an IP range block may be necessary.

Errm, could you just delete the talk page comments rather than responding to them? I've blocked that IPs, but its a bit pointless because they will just get new ones William M. Connolley (talk) 16:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

And already got another one, 89.129.42.174, comment on your talk page. Regards, Justin talk 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Leatherstocking (Result: no forum shopping)

Page: Lyndon LaRouche (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Edit warring. Beginning on August 28, SlimVirgin began a series of controversial edits, 140 of them at last count, despite the "controversial" tag on the talk page which asks that controversial edits be discussed in advance. Any attempt to modify these edits has been reverted without explanation. SlimVirgin also has a technique of mixing controversial with non-controversial edits and then assigning a vague or misleading edit summary, so that when she is deleting favorable or adding negative commentary, she will often use a summary like "tidying."

1. Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
2. Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
3. Deletion of press commentary favorable to LaRouche
4. Giving undue weight to obscure critics
5. Giving undue weight to obscure critics
6. Giving undue weight to obscure critics
7. Giving undue weight to obscure critics
8. Giving undue weight to obscure critics
9. Giving undue weight to obscure critics
10. Giving undue weight to obscure critics
11. Giving undue weight to obscure critics
12. Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics (in these edits she deletes commentary from the New York Times and Laird Wilcox to the effect that the "decoding" techniques of Dennis King and others are a form of conspiracy theory.)
13. Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics
14. Deletion of notable commentary, critical of the methods of LaRouche's more extreme critics

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This seems to be a continuation of this Dougweller (talk) 15:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

These look like mostly contiguous edits, which count as one. Can you remove the contiguous ones please, if you want this to be considered William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to see here. Move along. This is blatant forum shopping with exagerated difs provided by Leatherstocking. Slim is reasonably pairing down an article which is prone to needlessly expand if left unchecked over time. The meaning of the article is not changed by the edits. Hiberniantears (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, agreed William M. Connolley (talk) 17:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)a

This is not a 3RR request. This is an open and shut case of edit warring. Slim is neither pairing nor paring the article -- she is reorienting it to her own POV, and edit warring to do so. If a rank and file editor did this, you would throw the book at him. Double standards undermine confidence in the project. --Leatherstocking (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. This *is* an open and shut case. You opened it; I've shut it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Echoing WMC here. Leatherstocking, there are tons of editors editing this article (it looks to me like over 100 edits a day, and many large chunks of edits from other people, yourself included), I don't see why you're focusing on one. If there are content issues, take them to the talk page. I see no edit warring here. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears that Leatherstocking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted the exact same report to WP:BLPN, see . Cirt (talk) 20:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
  • User warned for forum shopping. rʨanaɢ /_contribs 20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:OpticsPhysics reported by User:Coppertwig (Result: 24h)

Page: Optics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: OpticsPhysics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (8 consecutive edits by OpticsPhysics; adds "“Classical” optics refers to those facts about optics that were known before the wave model of light in the nineteenth century." which is very different from the definition of "classical optics" previously on the page, i.e. "In classical optics, light is modeled as an electromagnetic wave..."

• 1st revert: 09:54, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
• 2nd revert: 10:48, 5 September 2009
• 3rd revert: 12:09, 5 September 2009
• 4th revert: 16:41, 5 September 2009

Each of the above reverts restores the material quoted in bold type above.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 10:53 5 September

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 14:37, 5 September 2009 (3 edits by me to Talk:Optics)

Comments:

Verbal did 3 reverts; however, Verbal was merely removing edits which had already been opposed by both Verbal and by Srleffler and by Srleffler at 05:43 5 September (before I arrived). Srleffler did one revert, along with other changes which attempt to resolve the situation with the definition of "classical optics". Verbal had also discussed on the talk page: . ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed that just a minute before I filed the report, OpticsPhysics had self-reverted, as I had requested. I therefore would like to withdraw my report (if it's not too late) and request that OpticsPhysics be unblocked. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 17:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

 Not done User may request unblocking by following the instructions given in the block template on their talk page. Further, their creation of a new account to evade the block is unlikely to help their cause. Nja 18:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:190.208.87.47 reported by User:Likeminas (Result: No vio)

Edit warring & Vandalism. This IP is deleting sourced content on the article. He has been warned and reverted for vandalism by several other editors. User refuses to discuss deletion of sourced table figure on talk page and insists (in Spanish) that 'false sources need no discussion'. Diffs of edit warring. . Likeminas (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• No violation There must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the rule to apply. Also, in the future, try to follow the example when leaving a report. Nja 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas reported by User:Darrenhusted (Result: 24h)

Page: Steve Gaines (pastor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 14:32 5th September

• 1st revert: 23:05 5th September 2009
• 2nd revert: 23:13 5th September 2009
• 3rd revert: 23:34 5th September 2009
• 4th revert: 00:00 6th September 2009
• 5th revert: 01:06 6th September 2009

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 23:41 5th September 2009

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This may also be linked to some recent blanking on Bellevue Baptist Church. The user keeps citing BLP (unusual for a newly registered user, who may have previous edited the Bellevue page under IPs) but the source given seems legit, at least to me. The user has now reverted to a version which includes part of the deleted text here, but I don't see anything wrong with the version that gave the full context. I am not going to revert further, for the moment as it is 01:54 and I need to sleep but will look at this again in the morning. Keep me posted. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours. Looks more like an attempt to remove criticism from the article than a legitimate BLP concern. There can be no doubt that the widely-report events cited in this article really occurred. Though some of the newspaper articles from 2006 are no longer visible on line, Google easily finds corroboration of these facts from other reliable sources. The Aletheiaeleutheroseihymas account, created August 17, seems to have no interests on Misplaced Pages besides removing material from this article. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kevin5593 reported by User:DonIago (Result: 48h)

Page: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kevin5593 (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:
User was blocked previously for edit warring on this very page. They continue to add massive amounts of unsourced trivia without providing even a summary. Though they have the right to do so, they are also deleting warnings posted to their Talk page, quite possibly to avoid being reported.
Doniago (talk) 04:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Nja 08:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Roman888 (Result: No action)

Page: Kitchen Nightmares (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Drmargi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

First of all I would like to report the following user for edit warring and causing disruption in the Kitchen Nightmares page. He brought in upon himself to changed the following pages by removing the updates of the restaurants without getting any concensus. The updates of the restaurants had references from reputed media and online sources.

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:

Response: The proposal was made to remove the updates to the status of restaurants and discussed some days ago. User:Roman888 had the opportunity to participate, but did not. Consensus was reached, and is noted in the discussion by at least three editors; the rationale was based in part on issues of reliability of sources, and in part on a series of arguments made by User:Madchester on the article for the UK version of the show Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares. Since then, two editors, one an anon IP have been blocked for edit warring by continually reverting, and two more anon IP's have made edits, all without engaging in discussion. Roman888 appeared this evening, both guns blazing, lacking in civility, determined to make this personal, and refusing to acknowledge the consensus in place, much less engage in any discussion. The edits he cites above are over a period of some days, and comparable edits were made by at least two other editors. There's an agenda at work here, having to do with Roman888's desire to add restaurant updates to the UK article, and my effort to encourage him to be civil and engage in discussion were met with this report. I have already made the admin User:Parsecboy aware of this situation, as he requested we do at the time he blocked the two previous users engaging in edit warring, in an attempt to resolve this amicably. Clearly, that's not possible where Roman888 is concerned. Drmargi (talk) 07:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• Declined Warned both users as both are edit warring. Any further reverts should equal a block for either or both parties depending. You must stop and discuss changes or seek WP:DR. Nja 09:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tranquillity Base reported by User:Cptnono (Result: more info)

Page: Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Tranquillity Base (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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (3rr meniton on 04:16, 31 August 2009 (UTC) and a heads up for these specific incidents given at "70: POV issue in the article". The user has been warned several times at the user talk page.

Comments:

The Sea Shepherd organization is contentious so differences in opinion is expected. The question on whether to add this to the Eco-terrorism category resulted in several reverts between different editors with many coming from Tranquillity Base. It looks like this caused some bad blood since Tranquillity Base instantly reverted three adjustments to recent edits. A heads up was given in the edit summary and the talk page. I believe that my adjustments were justified but even if they were not discussion would have been appropriate. I don't know if a block is necessary since the editing is not intended to be disruptive but I would appreciate an admin making a mention to the editor that this behavior cannot continue.Cptnono (talk) 11:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno who edited the template to say "link permitted but they shouldn't have. Please use diffs. From the history, I can only see 3R in 24h William M. Connolley (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have no idea and probably shouldn't have been so confused by the template but was. I don't know what is needed but the edits can be seen on the history page between 10:14, 6 September 2009 and 10:42, 6 September 2009 at Revision history of Sea Shepherd Conservation Society. There are also many reverts before but these jumped out as a concern. Is that enough information?Cptnono (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Within your time range there are two effective reverts only, since contiguous edits count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1 and 2 are separate removals of the catagory 3-5 is reverts of adjustments made. 6 was a contiguous edit of 5. It doesn't need to be labeled a revert to be in violation of the standards, correct? Also, even if the editor is not blocked, T-Base has been reverting a few edits a day for the last several days and certainly deserves some criticism. IP #68 does as well.Cptnono (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you mean by 6. can you not just provide diffs? There is a link in the edit history for it William M. Connolley (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I know what link you mean now. Give me a second to see if I can figure it out.Cptnono (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

1: Revision as of 02:30, 6 September 2009 The eco-terrorism category is disputed. Tranquillity Base has gone back and forth with an IP for several days.

2. Revision as of 10:21, 6 September 2009 The IP reverted the revert and after several edits Tranquillity removed the category again. I honestly don't care if it stays or goes while the discussion is going on but this is inappropriate on both sides.

3. Revision as of 10:30, 6 September 2009 This is a straight revert

4. Revision as of 10:35, 6 September 2009 So is this one.

5. Revision as of 10:42, 6 September 2009 Oops, I was incorrect about 6. This was a revert to a single edit I made but it was not labeled "revert".Cptnono (talk) 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

As I've already said, Within your time range there are two effective reverts only, since contiguous edits count as one William M. Connolley (talk) 22:04, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

::Thanks for the bold but I read it the first time. 1 and 2 could be considered the same edit. 3, 4, and 5 are all separate. They removed content from three different edits so they are not contiguous.Cptnono (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC) Crap "Consecutive reverts by one user with no intervening edits by another user count as one revert" sorry about that. I thought I understood it pretty well but didn't. Time to go make some reverts armed with this new knowledge (only half kidding :) )Cptnono (talk) 22:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

This issue has also been discussed at WP:ANI#Sea Shepherd, where some intelligent things were said about the 'eco-terrorism' label. Though my impression is that WMC is not planning to take action on the original 3RR report, I would caution all parties against reverting controversial items without a patient search for Talk page consensus, perhaps even an WP:RFC. If the current pace of reverting continues, blocks for edit-warring appear likely. EdJohnston (talk) 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:96.241.12.102 reported by User:RepublicanJacobite (Result: 24h)

Page: William Greer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 96.241.12.102 (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:

Previously blocked as 71.246.220.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 3RR on this same article, continuing to make the exact same undue weight fringe POV original research filled edits against consensus. The new IP used for the last two reverts is clearly the same editor. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

24h + semi the article for a bit William M. Connolley (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:JohnHistory reported by Gamaliel (talk) (Result: 24h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Van Jones (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). JohnHistory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 07:10, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Blogs are not acceptable for admission under Wiki Guidelines, as was previously stated, and this is also irrelevant to Jones specifically as already stated.")
2. 07:26, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Stop using a Blog, especially in such a misleading manner as to use it and leave out that it says he was involved in 2002 in 9/11 conspiracies")
3. 07:33, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Vandalism")
4. 07:57, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* 9/11 Truth petition */ Vandalism this reverted should be addressed now. Look at the history and talk page.")

There is no vandalism here, merely a dispute about the appropriateness of a source, namely a professional journalist's blog from the news publication Politico. User has reverted multiple editors and is not quite civil, IMO, on the talk page. Has been around since 2007 so he really should know better. Gamaliel (talk) 20:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

semi-stale but I don't see any evidence of contgrition, so blocked. However, I'd be sympathetic to unblocking if requested William M. Connolley (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

User:nableezy reported by User:AgadaUrbanit (Result: no vio)

Page: Gaza War (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments: I appreciate nableezy contributions and opintion, but this looks like silly edit war to me.

Agada is trying to change text that has been stable for more than 6 months. I have asked him to keep it as is while we await other responses on the talk page. nableezy - 02:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the change is in order to improve encyclopedic value of the article. I have no objection to you changing the article, in order to improve it, as you did earlier. So 6 months argument is not accurate, I can not accept it. I'm trying to hear to your arguments and implement your suggestions. Your edit pattern matches edit warring pattern. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 06:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agada, the only other person on the talk page discussion, which I started, has agreed that it is better to leave it as it was. I am just asking you to wait for consensus from other editors once the edit has been reverted once. It is also edit warring to continually revert an edit over the objections of other editors. nableezy - 07:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No vio. Agada admonished for failing to use the talk page for meaningful discussion. Leave out the geolocation nonsense, and don't try to make complex arguemnts through edit comments William M. Connolley (talk) 08:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

William, thank you for your resolution, I appreciate and respect it. This is really unrelated to discussion subject, though I'd like to relate to your "nonsense" remark. Maybe my skin is not think enough and maybe I'm over sensitive. I related to line of arguments like this which I consider as opposite to Wiki spirit. Generally editors find escape from sad subject of discussion in humour which sometimes challenge civility and good taste borders. Hope you see what I mean. Thanks again. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rm125 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 24h)

Page: Aftonbladet-Israel controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Rm125 (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: Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Lede_once_again_please_read_carefully and Talk:Aftonbladet-Israel_controversy#Al_Aharam_is_not_RS as well as WP:RS/N#Al-Ahram Comments:

Edit warring here and a number of other articles in the users short time here. nableezy - 05:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

A warning about the technicalities and general concept of edit-warring may be in order. RM125 is a newbie editor that is "warned" by his editing opponents about everything and anything, whether its wiki-policy or not. Every once in a while one of the warnings sticks, as in this case, where there may have been a technical 3rr violation. One more point in order: Rm125 has thoroughly discusses his changes on the talk page. Tag-teamers have mostly ignored his comments with the knowledge that they won't go over 3rr in their reverts. In any case, a newbie final warning makes the most sense at this point. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The newbie has already been blocked for edit warring, what other final warning is needed? nableezy - 07:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I apologize, you are correct. Rm125 was warned multiple times for edit warring but blocked for disruptive editing. nableezy - 07:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's better, but not perfect. He was "warned" by his editing opponents about every alphabetical policy that exists. Including one about WP:CANVASS when he asked for my (and nobody elses) opinion about an article because I'm the only editor that was actually nice to him since he stepped foot into Misplaced Pages. Instead of seeing how many different ways till Tuesday he can be blocked, we should be nurturing this new editor. He was blocked for being disruptive be not explaining his moves on the talkpage. He began colloberating with editors on teh talk page, but what does he get as a reward? Another ground for a block. No wonder we're having a difficult time getting new editors to join. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 07:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

He has been warned for edit warring at Haaretz multiple times (including once by an admin that as far as I can tell has never reverted the user), he has been edit warring at this page, at Al Ahram, at Blood libel, at nearly every page he has touched. You want to nurture him by all means go ahead, but he needs to learn to stop trying to force in a favored version of every article he sees. If an admin feels a final warning is in order then fine, I dont have a problem with that, but he cannot be allowed to continue this mass disruption at a number of pages. nableezy - 07:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, please stop "enabling" Rm125, and let him take responsibility for his actions like a grown adult. He was warned about canvassing because he did canvass you and Jaakobou. He has spent nearly all of his time as a Misplaced Pages editor edit-warring on four articles. It's very noble that you want to protect Rm125, but he claims to be a grown-up, so he should take responsibility for his actions. It's not the other editors' fault, it's not the fact that English is his third language, it's not the "fact" that I'm a KGB Commissar—all things that Rm125 has charged—the bottom line is that Rm125 is an edit warrior and you're making excuses for him. Please stop. — ] (talk · contribs) 08:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned in this very thread that I want a neutral admin to warn him about 3rr and edit warring in general, so you're comment about "enabling him" is quite perplexing. Other than that, I guess I am a little weird in that I don't like seeing newbies blocked. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

How many "newbie final warnings" is Rm125 entitled to before somebody finally blocks him? Have you seen the edit history of his Talk page? He's edit-warring, and the project would be better-off if he had a time-out. — ] (talk · contribs) 08:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

24h. BC, your concern is admirable but somehow you have neglected to mention that you are making the same reverts as Rm125 . Please could you and Rm125 mark your reverts as such. No, extensive talk page discussion does not condone breaking 3RR William M. Connolley (talk) 08:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Xook1kai Choa6aur reported by Wapondaponda (talk) (Result: 24h)

Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 07:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Human evolution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 04:57, 29 August 2009 (edit summary: "/* Homo neanderthalensis */ + review +{fact}")
2. 14:03, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
3. 15:18, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genus Homo */")
4. 16:30, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
5. 18:45, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "")
6. 18:25, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "see talk, atempt to de pov the article.")
7. 19:02, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312227566 by ArglebargleIV (talk)")
8. 20:20, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "+POV + {failed verification}")

This user is involved in several low grade edit wars on other articles including

Anatomically modern humans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).

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

1. 15:27, 28 August 2009 (edit summary: "")
2. 18:27, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 311793241 by Muntuwandi (talk)")
3. 18:56, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "- contradiction from definition. Specimens insted of indyviduals.")
4. 18:57, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "- contradiction from definition. Specimens insted of indyviduals.")
5. 05:34, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 312026741 by 2over0 (talk)")

Low grade edit war on

Multiregional origin of modern humans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 05:08, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "-"most prominent list" based on non specific arbitrary criteria, e.g, personal webpage - step towards dePOV")
2. 05:18, 31 August 2009 (edit summary: "- trim of information entirely , and verbatim, repeated in section criticism")
3. 07:18, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "fixed ref")
4. 07:40, 1 September 2009 (edit summary: "- {clarify} rephrased sentence")
5. 05:07, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "- POV see talk, ME and RAO (now) are comparably crosslinked and tagged more even.")
6. 05:14, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* References */ - {Refimprove} because no {fact} or simmilar taggs")
7. 05:20, 4 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Criticism of the multiregional hypothesis */ errata, it was one {fact}, but explained. - it")
8. 14:09, 5 September 2009 (edit summary: "/* Genetic evidence */")

• Diff of warning: here

The user just recently created an account but the user's edits are consistent with User talk:76.16.176.166 and User talk:24.15.125.234 who have been blocked for edit warring and sockpuppetry per prior 3rr report Numerous complaints about lack of communication are indicated incident report. —Wapondaponda (talk) 07:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

IP:86.165.251.159 reported by User:Alithea (Result: 24h)

Page: Scottish Knights Templar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 86.165.251.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: External Link: The Rosslyn Templar - Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, by R.T. McPherson, 1836

• 1st revert: (Undid revision 310142964 by GSOSMTH (talk))
• 2nd revert: (Undid revision 311221951 by GoBack1 (talk))
• 3rd revert: (Advertising a book about rosslyn has nothing to do with scottish knights templars)
• 4th revert: (self advertisement of a book related to rosslyn chapel and nothing to do with this article) (undo)
• 5th revert: (undo)
• 6th revert: (Undid revision 312318682 by Simsek (talk)) (undo)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:86.165.251.159

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The Rosslyn Templar - Templar Knight at Roslin Chapel, by R.T. McPherson, 1836

Comments:
The anonymous IP is confrontational in the discussion on the external link e.g. "So I can take a photograph of the chapel, write a spurious book with little factual content and then wiki accepts it??? So Simsek, I am ready to escalate this" --Alithea (talk) 09:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

24h William M. Connolley (talk) 10:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat reported by User:Hobartimus (Result: )

Page: Černová tragedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Wladthemlat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

previous version being reverted to by IP : Revision as of 23:14, 29 August 2009 (tagged as :references removed)

• 1st revert: Revision as of 19:19, 5 September Has the word reverted in edit summary
• 2nd revert: Revision as of 19:27, 5 September Has the word reverted in edit summary
• 3rd revert: Revision as of 20:44, 5 September Has the word reverted in edit summary
• 4th revert: Revision as of 18:06, 6 September Has the word reverted in edit summary

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: multiple 3RR blocks

Comments:
There are several edits outside the reported ones but these fall within 24 hours. The problem is constant removal of a piece of text objected to by this editor and the supporting source. This was first done by an IP a few days before in a way similar to simple vandalism Revision as of 23:14, 29 August 2009 without any comment and was tagged by the system as :"references removed" (only visible in article history). The IP offered no comment for his action and the user (I'm unaware of any connection) offered also little commentary. User first said the "source does not exist" and after his concerns were addressed the source was re-verified and an additional web link added, plus the quote provided he still kept deleting the source and text, only switched his argument. The sourced text was not recently inserted it survived since it was added in 2008 January (). Without commenting on it I'd add that the user also has some intense reverts on another article Dezo Hoffmann. All the edits are marked as reverts by the automated tool twinkle that the user used to make the reverts. Hobartimus (talk) 13:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Wladthemlat reported by Nmate (talk) (Result: )

Wladthemlat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Gabriel Bethlen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1. 15:13, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nmate; No objections raised on talk, reverting to neutral, historically accurate and WP:NCGN compliant version. (TW))")
2. 18:07, 6 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nmate identified as vandalism to last revision by Wladthemlat. (TW))")
3. 09:01, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nmate; Go see and express yourself at the talk. You're the only one being abusive here right now. . (TW))")
4. 10:24, 7 September 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Nmate; I am not innsultinng you, but you are nnot onnly avoidinng myself, you are avoidinng anny discussionn. Pozsonny is definnitely againnst WP:NCGN. . (TW))

" Comments:

Wladthemlat often objects to I am reluctant to take part in any discussions with him which is true, due to his aggressive behaviour. He, following all my contributions, is almost always reverting me, insulting with a summary of "identified as vandalism". . It seems that usage of this edit summary of "identified as vandalism" has been going on, even after he being warned thorough on his talk page and in an edit summary, for what he answered to me with a provocative message on my talk page.

And after he had called me "a Hungarian with a tad overdeveloped sense of nationalism" on a talk page , I indeed tried to avoid any contact with him.--Nmate (talk) 13:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Turkish Flame reported by User:Wexy (Result: )

Page: European route E80 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Turkish Flame (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=European_route_E80&oldid=312023154

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=European_route_E80&diff=312188054&oldid=312023154
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=European_route_E80&diff=312392124&oldid=312391670
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=European_route_E80&diff=312394051&oldid=312392693

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Turkish_Flame#3RR_2

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring