Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:29, 4 February 2010

• 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:Folantin reported by Groupthink (talk) (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

St. Bartholomew's Day massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Folantin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 15:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 08:57, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "dubious anachronism")
2. 14:18, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Rv. This is not a term used by scholars specialising in 16th-century French history. The word "terrorist" is generally avoided on Misplaced Pages")
3. 15:21, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "This is undue weight and a violation of WP:NPOV. Gilmour was a British politician, not a specialist in French 16th-century history")

• Diff of warning: here —Groupthink (talk) 15:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not violated 3RR and I have replied to Groupthink on my talk page. Instead of replying to me he has filed this report. Groupthink's edits to the page in question are a violation of neutral point of view and undue weight (the word "terrorism" is a real no-no on Misplaced Pages unless you have rock-solid sourcing for its use). I (as well as other users) have attempted to keep this page neutral and scholarly for well over three years now. --Folantin (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

1) As noted above, you have violated 3RR, blatantly. 2) I did reply to you, in the form of my edit summaries and with a 3RR warning, which you scoffed at, leaving me no choice but to serve notice. 3) This guideline states that the word terrorist, not terrorism, is to be avoided. Given that there's a whole well-sourced section on the subject of the page in question in Christian terrorism, your argument is specious. 4) "I (as well as other users) have attempted to keep this page neutral and scholarly for well over three years now" sounds like a claim of ownership to me. Groupthink (talk) 15:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't made more than three reverts in 24 hours. The "sourcing" in the Christian terrorism article is to a single obscure article, not readable by non-subscribers, by a dead British Conservative MP. That does not represent the balance of scholarly opinion on the matter and is a violation of undue weight. If you want to use the word "terrorist" on Misplaced Pages you have to have absolutely rock-solid sourcing. --Folantin (talk) 16:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(NB) Since you've now taken up the conversation on my talk page, I suggest continuing the matter there rather than here. --Folantin (talk) 16:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Interested parties may find said discussion here. Groupthink (talk) 16:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mister Mystery reported by Hektor (talk) (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Page:Doctor Who (2010 series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views).
User being reported: Mister Mystery (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 15:38, 3 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341695164 by Hektor (talk)")
2. 15:40, 3 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341696242 by Hektor (talk)How can you? There not even released until tomorrow.")
3. 15:45, 3 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341696882 by Hektor (talk)Well until their ACTUALLY released everyone will keep deleting")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

—Hektor (talk) 16:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Anonywiki reported by User:Tony Sidaway (Result: blocked by User:Vsmith)

Page: Charles Darwin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Anonywiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 20:01, 29 December 2009
  
• 2nd revert: 18:16, 30 December 2009, note promise to edit war on this.
  
• 3rd revert: 19:16, 31 December 2009
  
• 4th revert: 20:30, 31 December 2009
  
• 5th revert: 22:36, 31 December 2009
  

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (Diff shows warnings at 20:33 and 21:04, 31 December, 2009)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User:Kavs8 reported by Per aspera ad Astra (Result: Warned)

Page: Dublin Airport (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kavs8 (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:

There is a huge edit war ongoing over the question whether to list Thomson Airways flights out of several Irish airports (especially Dublin), which is fought on a number of European airports. These flights cannot be booked directly and are therefore not notable per WP:NOTTRAVEL Per aspera ad Astra (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC) -->

This user (Kavs8) has been hostile in the past as well. This time around, his only justification is that "I flew it so it must exist". And, of course, comments like:

• "i will continue to edit-war if continue's to be distructive in editing"
• "if you continue to STOP edit-waring and re insert all destinations served by Thomson charter i will stop edit-waring but under that condition." Jasepl (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. No recent edits. If Kavs8 resumes in the same style, open a new report since a block is likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mark Shaw reported by IP 96.244.150.95 (Result: Stale)

Page: Little Green Footballs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Mark Shaw (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: N/A, he made his fourth revert before I got a chance to warn him. (Update: Notified)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I am well aware that I am at 3 reverts, however, I feel I made adequate attempts at communication and do not deserve to be reprimanded. He simply chose to edit war. 96.244.150.95 (talk) 00:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Note Stating "you start the discussion, then" is hardly a mature attitude to take, especially when the pattern of WP:BRD is not being followed. You have just as much obligation to use the talk page as the other editor does. In fact, a little more, because you're the one looking to change things. Discussion is ongoing on talk page, it appears. Achieve consensus, it takes two to edit-war. tedder (talk) 00:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Check the timestamps: I am at 3R, not 4. Also, I note that 95 has begun using the article's discussion page, so perhaps this can be resolved without too much difficulty. Mark Shaw (talk) 00:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Stale. Neither party was justified in making so many reverts, and if they continue in the same vein, blocks are likely. EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:93.142.159.24 reported by User:Brandmeister (Result: Protected)

Page: Greco-Persian Wars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 93.142.159.24 (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:

The words "Greek defensive victory" were changed to just "Greek victory", but reverts continue against consensus. This is mot likely Xashaiar (talk · contribs), socking unlogged, but could be another Iranian sock.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result - Article protected for one week by Ged UK. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Bovineboy2008 reported by User:Gqwu (Result: 24h to submitter)

Page: List of Wii games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bovineboy2008 (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: Notified

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion on user's talk page:

Comments: Bovineboy2008 claims to have consensus to change the format of the table by deleting columns of information (release dates) I find useful. I have been updating the page with these dates for 2 years, and strongly object to removing any useful information. The member claims that to have consensus from a 2 month discussion on the article talk page, but I was unable to participate because I did not edit the page for 3 months. The format has been in place for 4+ years, and I feel there needs to be much more discussion over a longer period of time to warrant such a drastic change. Gqwu (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While I may have reverted 3 times, I don't feel I was edit warring. The user was being bold in reverting a change that was reached through discussion, s/he was reverted but refused to discuss. I wish the editor could have been in the original discussion, and can certainly open the conversation back up. But just posting that they "absolutely reject all attempts" (, ) to change seems that the editor did not seem to be interested in finding a consensus, but having things their way. I would say that my behavior wasn't the best either, but I am open to discuss and am not going to attempt to revert again. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 01:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - 24 hours to submitter, who is over 3RR. I offered him the chance to self-revert, but he continued to edit without making a response. The other participant, Bovineboy2008, has expressed his willingness to stop the war. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Steel2009 edit warring reported by User:RasputinAXP (Result: No vio)

Page: Rowan University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Steel2009 (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 warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: "Talk" happened in reversion comments. See diffs. User does not appear willing to discuss. Edit: User has now decided after being warned of AN/E to bring it to the Talk page.

Comments: Long time no see, former comrades-in-arms. While I'm no longer an admin, or even editing that frequently, I have taken over some editing duties on pages that need frequent attention, like that of my alma mater. The edit warring over the murder of Donnie Farrell is something I'd like to otherwise avoid, but a previously uninvolved editor has decided to remove all references to the incident. Since this began another previously uninvolved editor has stepped in to revert my previous reversions; since as yet he's not edit warring (and I'm cognizant of avoiding violating WP:3RR) I am not seeking to involve him as of yet.

• 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. No clear violation of WP:3RR. There is a small edit war, which as of now isn't too serious and therefore editors strongly advised to read over and follow the guidance at WP:DR. NJA (t/c) 11:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Miss-jessie-gal reported by Bidgee (talk) (Result: 15h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Bellbridge, Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Miss-jessie-gal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 10:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 00:17, 23 January 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 338905757 by Mattinbgn (talk)")
2. 06:23, 30 January 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 339451574 by Mattinbgn (talk)")
3. 11:05, 1 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 340861225 by Bidgee (talk)")
4. 10:19, 2 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341261334 by Bidgee (talk) THIS IS BACKED UP EVIDENCE GATHERED FROM LOCALS")

• Diff of warning: here

—Bidgee (talk) 10:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 15 hours NJA (t/c) 11:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• User is back at edit warring again!

1. 06:17, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341451559 by Bidgee (talk)")

Bidgee (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• And again!

1. 09:56, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341636516 by Mattinbgn (talk)")

Bidgee (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yet again, clearly a disruptive account.

1. 10:07, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341655873 by Mattinbgn (talk)")

Bidgee (talk) 10:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Miss-jessie-gal has been reblocked for another 55 hours by User:NJA due to the continued warring. EdJohnston (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:BobStinkyButt reported by User:NJA (Result: Indef)

Page: Nikki Catsouras photographs controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: BobStinkyButt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Various warns, all removed

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Result - Blocked indef by User:Edgar181. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:70.17.125.165 reported by User:Nableezy (Result: 31h)

Page: Golan Heights (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 70.17.125.165 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk currently, but there is past consensus for the Arabic coming first and I attempted to get the IP to go to the talk page with his or her concerns ()

Comments:
The IP is continually changing the order of the languages despite a long-standing consensus to place the Arabic first. Three different users have reverted the IP, the IP just continues to revert. nableezy - 00:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 03:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:76.235.200.246 reported by User:SeanNovack (Result: 31h)

• Page: Fox News Channel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: 76.235.200.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

This user seems to be pushing an agenda. While I admit I am a conservative, the facts I have presented are just that, facts, according to a polling source that is generally favorable to the political Left.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Cannot warn on 76.235.200.246 page because he doesn't have one

User has been Warned and has made two reverts since the warning. Arzel (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Rapier1 (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Should block and block quickly. 3RR has been breached 3 fold--Jojhutton (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jojhutton, I would like you to take the WP:3RR warning off my Talk Page. Thank You. ThinkEnemies (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In order to be fair, you did revert 3 times on the same page, and that is edit warring. Sorry, edit warring is edit warring. The only reason that you weren't reported is because you didn't revert the 4th time.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll accept any punishment that any administrator sees fit to meet out, but I would like it noted for the record that I was also adding information to the talk page and explaining that the reversions were being done because those edits that were being made were factually incorrect, as is proven upon reading the source material. Rather than revert a 4th time I brought the issue here. Rapier1 (talk) 02:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In retrospect, we should revert the ip as many times as it takes, since he is clearly removing the section against consensus. But to keep all of our noses clean, lets just wait for the block and then revert one last time.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, upon reflection, looking at the history there one of those edits was simply a cleanup of the previous revert with no other edits in between, so I believe that was only 2 reverts on my part (someone may want to double-check that, I'm getting confused with all the vandalism here). Rapier1 (talk) 03:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours EdJohnston (talk) 03:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this IP is a sock or is totally unrelated, but this block got an NPA mention here.  7  07:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Paulnrswain reported by User:Doktorbuk (Result: Semiprotected)

Page: Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported:

• Paulnrswain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Beckslou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 149.254.182.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Early flag-up warnings for Paulnrswain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Beckslou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 149.254.182.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) who are all having fun and games on Pudsey (UK Parliament constituency). User Galloglass and I have been reverting their suspiciously similar edits based on the fact we have evidence to proove our point...and they don't. Very close to 3RR wars going on here, so thought it best to flag up something before it all kicks off... doktorb _words 11:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Article semiprotected by User:BrownHairedGirl. EdJohnston (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:66.92.46.42 reported by User:Codf1977 (Result: 31h)

Page: American Whig–Cliosophic Society (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 66.92.46.42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:66.92.46.42

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I have tried to engage this IP user in the reasons for the template tags and text he wants in but to no avail. Codf1977 (talk) 18:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours NJA (t/c) 19:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, I assume that I should avoid reverting this users last edit or I will end up in 3RR jail, so can another user please put them back. Codf1977 (talk) 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted the text, though consistent unexplained removal of maintenance templates can typically be classified as vandalism, therefore excusing your reverts from 3RR. If they resume without discussion, re-report it here and point to this report (or possibly report it WP:AIV with a link to this report). NJA (t/c) 19:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - I was working on the better safe than sorry principle. I have again posted to the talk page re the table of past officers, and will wait till tomorrow before make any more edits to the main page. Codf1977 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Orlady reported by doncram (talk) (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Riverview Terrace Historic District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Orlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

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

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

1. 16:26, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Reasoning was the same as the last half-dozen identical edits; I just got tired of repeating, so I used rollback: "commented out placeholder sentence (again); when there's nothing to say, don't say anything"")
2. 17:19, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341706295 by Doncram (talk) reverting inclusion of sentence that has no meaning -- when there's nothing to say, don't say anything")
3. 19:13, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341727093 by Doncram (talk) I still stand by the edit, for reasons explained repeatedly in earlier summaries. I apologized for using rollback.")

1. 19:13, 3 February 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 341727093 by Doncram (talk) I still stand by the edit, for reasons explained repeatedly in earlier summaries. I apologized for using rollback.")

Not sure if above, provided by use of 3rr reporting tool, is what is wanted. Here are 4 diffs:

1. diff 1
2. diff 2
3. diff 3
4. diff 4

• Diff of warning: No diff required. Orlady is an Administrator and knows these rules.

• Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on Orlady's Talk page: diff here

• Orlady contends here that the edit she reverts is "tantamount to vandalism" and then again that 3rr does not apply here, in response to other editor's comments about this.

• Disclosure: I am involved, along with Orlady, in a long-running (7 month) contention over NRHP HD vs. neighborhood/hamlet articles in Connecticut. The process has been winding down to resolution with help of an invited mediator, User:Acroterion, and also somewhat by User:EdJohnston (esp. in reviewing another involved, imposing an edit restriction in place for that other editor, who is not Orlady or myself). A milestone was a semi-complicated compromise, which has been providing stability for a while now, between the other editor and myself. Orlady has sometimes professed little interest in the subject area, but persisted in what i have termed "determined participation". This current 3RR violation has nothing specific to do with thatas this involves an entirely unrelated, uninvolved editor and no issue of NRHP HD vs. neighborhood/hamlet articles. Instead, it amounts to, or verges upon, wp:wikihounding, in Orlady following me around and contesting, unproductively. I asked her politely enough at her Talk page to avoid that appearance and back off with respect to this article.

• I expect it is possible Orlady and i are headed towards some more formal arbitration, if she will not back off. Here, I mainly want to point out the 3RR violation by Orlady, and to call attention to what i believe is invalid claim of exemption for 3rr by her. Also, in the process, she used wp:rollback, upon which she has previously instructed me, which appears to be another minor violation of admin-type privileges.

—doncram (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This sort of dispute over meaningless language ("The district has some significance") is the reason why we have crappy NRHP articles. The project spends more time bickering over wording than actually improving the articles. Is it too much to ask that editors write semi-coherent articles that comply with WP:STUB and that give at least a minimum of encyclopedic information? --Elkman 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Doncram apparently believes that it is acceptable to create fill-in-the-blanks stub pages -- and add placeholder text -- in article space. He has added the sentence "The district has some significance" to a number of different articles about National Register of Historic Places historic districts. For background, every property or district listed on the National Register has been judged to possess some sort of "significance" (for example, "architectural significance"), and there are checkboxes on the nomination forms to identify which categories of significance are present. The statement "The district has some significance" is a meaningless placeholder. Doncram, an experienced user, has been advised repeatedly that he should not be putting placeholder content of this nature in article space (this is one relevant conversation), but he persists in doing so for reasons that only he can explain. As I stated on my talk page in an exchange with Doncram and another user, I consider the repetitive inclusion of placeholders (including but not limited to this particular sentence) to be tantamount to vandalism, and I think that Doncram's persistence in this behavior is vandalism.

The cited series of edits to Riverview Terrace Historic District is one of several series of edits that I have initiated to remove these meaningless placeholder sentences. Recently I have been searching for articles containing the inherently meaningless placeholder language "The district has some significance" and 'commenting out' that language. Doncram accuses me of following him around, but he has in turn been reverting my edits. Here's some prehistory for that particular series of edits:

• Doncram inserts the placeholder sentence -- including an ellipsis (....) that emphasizes that this is a placeholder
• Orlady comments out the placeholder sentence with the edit summary "commented out the incomplete placeholder sentence -- replace it with real information later on..."
• Doncram removes the formatting I added with the edit summary "remove comment inserted --somewhat harassingly perhaps-- by another editor. Comment changed meaning, implied something else sourced by a reference. Confused rather than helped." Note: My "commenting out" action had attached the reference to the previous sentence. Since the reference is the nomination form for the National Register listing of the district -- and is a complete description of the historic district at the time of its listing -- it was perfectly valid to cite it in support of a sentence that said: "In 1984, the district included 21 buildings deemed to contribute to the historic character of the area, and one other contributing site."
• I restored the formatting with the edit summary "commented out placeholder sentence (again); when there's nothing to say, don't say anything."
• Doncram reverts my edit

I believe that Doncram's continuing insistence on publishing this and other meaningless placeholder content in article space constitutes vandalism that deserved to be reverted, even repetitively. I have already stated (to Doncram) that I was wrong for using rollback for diff1 in the series that Doncram cites. My excuse is that I had just done several identical "undos" on other articles and it was already very late at night (I wanted to go to bed), so I got lazy and used "rollback" for the very last undo in the series, knowing that Doncram would already have read my repetitive edit summaries, and not thinking that some other user would stumble upon that edit before Doncram saw it. --Orlady (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Odd that she would apologize and then repeat the edit. --doncram (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, I apologized for using rollback for that particular edit, instead of undoing it in a way that would allow me to leave an original hand-crafted edit summary. The result was that this one edit did not have one of the same detailed edit summaries that I had provided for the previous dozen similar edits. I did not, and do not, apologize for the edit itself, which unpublished a useless and irresponsible sentence that you had added to article space. --Orlady (talk) 01:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady, that isn't really the issue. The issue is you breaking 3RR and recognizing that you need to be held accountable for your actions like any other user, admin or not, would be if they violated 3RR. CTJF83 chat 01:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady has, indeed, been repeatedly revisiting CT articles where a merger of NRHP HD topic with village/hamlet/neighborhood topic has been implemented, as part of long process. Per the principal agreement within that process, the phrasing "substantially similar" with a citation needed tag was added. Orlady is revisiting these to tear that out, undermining the agreement, fighting against an agreement that has otherwise served to provide stability and nearly resolve a 7 month contention. The suggested alternative for all of these, open to her, repeatedly invited to her, is to compose a footnote to the NRHP document now available for almost all cases in CT, and use that or another source to compose a better, sourced characterization of relationship. I have added NRHP doc references to more than 100 CT NRHP articles by now, and the other editor originally involved in contention has also been contributing sourced characterizations. --doncram (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like another abuse of admin powers. Orlady knows she can't be blocked as an admin (being she can unblock herself). As I pointed out to her, as stated at WP:Van "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism." An admin should know this, and not be violating 3RR with false vandalism accusations. Should Doncram have expanded the details as to why it is notable, yes, but that's not the issue, 3RR violation is. CTJF83 chat 00:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Administrators can be blocked, and they may not unblock themselves. There appears to be no misuse of administrative tools (rollback is not an exclusive preserve of administrator). Please don't conflate administrative status and a content dispute. Acroterion _(talk) 00:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

My apologizes then, I was misinformed on IRC. I was pointing out that admins should know and follow 3RR. CTJF83 chat 00:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Orlady is at 3RR (not yet exceeded) for several articles involved in the longrunning controversy. This is edit warring. The process worked out has been to address topics in a master list of items, managed in a tracking page within User talk:Acroterion. Polaron and I have both, with some misunderstandings from time to time, been working within that framework. For example, i would note "P reports 3 criteria met. Currently merged. I added "substantially similar" type statement and added Talk page statements. Should be okay now. --doncram (talk) 21:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)", and invited mediator Acroterion has been checking those off as Done, indicating some approval that the situation is resolved according to the agreement between Polaron and myself. Orlady's recent edits have not been announced, appear purely to disrupt a process that has been working, is nearly complete in some respects. Orlady has not raised support for any agreement other than the "Poquetanuck agreement" that she opposed and yet which became a consensus of sorts. There would be no value to be added by opening a new agreement process somewhere else, either, but Orlady has not done even that. She is labelling as vandalism my edits which implement the working solution agreed to in a well-discussed process.

But, all this about the CT NRHP's, is an aside to the current subject that Orlady has exceeded 3RR, and has only stated that 3RR does not apply. And that she applied this in a different context entirely, about an NRHP in a different state involving a different local editor where there is no controversy, no suggestion of any issue about merger/split vs. a neighborhood article. It is exceeding 3RR in the further aggravating context of wikihounding -- of following me around in unrelated edits to harass me and quite likely to turn off a newer editor in this area from working productively in developing content. --doncram (talk) 01:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Some misunderstandings??" You demanded that Polaron be blocked yesterday because you didn't like his edits. The ensuing silence was deafening. I disagree with your characterization of this dispute, and I disagree with the notion that the disputed wording has a stamp of approval on my part. Acroterion _(talk) 03:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, yes, some misunderstandings may be an understatement, about the various flareups that go outside and around the central process that has mostly been working. About yesterday's, it appeared possible that a series of edits was in violation of edit restriction in place, and I still think they were in vio of your own directions, though you've clarified you don't yourself quite want to impose your authority on that. I also fully understand that you do not like the disputed wording, and neither do I, relative to the preferred alternative of someone adding the NRHP doc or another reference and forming a proper comparison of two topics that have been merged into one article. Which is the next step, after stabilizing the articles, and which I and others have been addressing constructively. You have conveyed well enough that you are holding your nose with respect to the compromise, temporary wording used in advance of proper development, and about other stuff. As you will have noted, though, a lot of progress has been made in actually settling many articles within the working framework, with development of sources and material going on. I do appreciate your hanging in. --doncram (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

"Holding my nose" is an apt summary. Any further discussions should take place elsewhere, though. Acroterion _(talk) 03:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Doncram, do you honestly believe you're not engaged in an edit war over these issues? I'm curious, do you really believe you're free of blame here? How many times have you reverted changes in the past 24 hours? 30? You may have cleverly dodged violating 3RR, but what you're doing can just as easily be called a case of "gaming the system," as mentioned on the edit warring page. And these aren't "unrelated edits" - they're related to the same issue, i.e., you're insistence we keep the useless phrase "It has some has some significance" in NRHP stubs. The fact that Orlady did a search to find this phrase and the "substantially similar" phrase doesn't mean she's harassing you. It's just sickening to see you of all people accuse someone of breaking a rule meant to prevent edit warring. Bms4880 (talk) 01:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is principally about 3RR violation, about a lesser degree about minor abuse of admin-type tool of rollback (which i and other non-admins have as well), and also about a growing degree of wikihounding by Orlady. This is not the forum for a full discussion of that. But to respond to you: about the Indiana article where 3RR violation occurred, I had only been constructively involved there with another editor. I was in fact surprised, alarmed, and then irritated by discovering that Orlady was involving herself there, in a totally different domain and with no constructive purpose. I did repeatedly remove her edits, after asking her nicely enough to avoid the appearance of wikihounding. About the CT NRHP articles, I have been working with others within a big checklist, where the recent priority has been to address User:Polaron's complaints that the Poquetanuck agreement had not been implemented fully, not yet rolled out to all the articles where it applied. I have been implementing that agreement by, among other edits, adding a statement of "substantially similar" to articles where the working agreement is to have merger. I am in fact pretty horrified to learn from Orlady's comments in this discussion and at her talk page, that she is embarked on a campaign to search on that phrase and eradicate it. That is outside of the working framework which has been prevailing and serving to stabilize and allow productive development on NRHP and village/hamlet/neighborhood articles. And to allow Polaron and me and Acroterion and others to back away from a long and toxic process. I am not surprised but I really am horrified. And I do not regard myself as edit warring in an unproductive way, only to re-implement an agreed-upon approach that Orlady appears to be seeking to disrupt at all costs. --doncram (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Need I remind everyone that this is a 3RR report on Orlady NOT Doncram. I'm not taking sides, but if Doncram violated 3RR, there should be a report on him. CTJF83 chat 02:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Administrator instructions" link at the top of the page has the following statement: "It may also prove useful to look at the reporter's history as they, too, may have violated 3RR or edit warred. If so, they may also be blocked." So yes, if Doncram is edit warring, he is equally accountable in this report. Bms4880 (talk) 02:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed closure - I think the original dispute is now moot, since the placeholder text to which Orlady so strenuously objected has been replaced with some useful content. Presumably the new text is acceptable to all sides. I would tend to close this case with No Action, but will wait and see if any other admin wants to comment. I've been making some effort at informal mediation of the NRHP Historic District dispute. As you can see, my efforts have not worked. In the future, I can see a need for sweeping restrictions, that will place annoying review requirements on the actions of a number of parties. The so-called Poquetanuck agreement seems not to have any teeth, or these editors wouldn't be coming back here all the time. EdJohnston (talk) 03:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're proposing to let an admin get away with violating policy? Admins needs to be held to a higher standard then regular users, that's why they are nominated and discussed by the community when they RfA. She knows better than to edit war and thus needs to be held accountable for her actions, as would any user. Ed, I see you have no problem blocking users for edit warring, what's the difference here? It involves an admin? If this is on going problem between her and Doncram, then it's high time WP:BP is instituted, "Blocks sometimes are used as a deterrent, to discourage whatever behavior led to the block and encourage a productive editing environment", and not let an admin slide by because they are an admin. CTJF83 chat 03:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like the issue isn't ever going to end. CTJF83 chat 03:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not because she's an admin, it's because of the situation, and the fact that this dispute is a continuation of a greater issue, of which Doncram is an equally-accountable party. Applying sanctions is a particularly ugly affair. It's best to do what's agreeable to all sides and what's helpful to the encyclopedia, rather than following a philosophy of strict constructionism. I am in agreement with Edjohnston's decision. I'll expand the "some significance" sentences in the remaining articles tomorrow so that they contain content meaningful to general readers, and I'll see what I can do to help resolve remaining disputes. Bms4880 (talk) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I want the thoughts on a neutral admin who has no history with either Orlady or Doncram, not 2 people who work with her a lot. Clearly some COI going on here. CTJF83 chat 04:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The article on the Davenport, Iowa (not Indiana) historic district that instigated this report is now safe from further revert-warring, thanks to Bms4880's edits that replaced the placeholder sentence with some actual content. I will also refrain (at least for the time being) from making any additional edits to the other articles where Doncram has been fiercely defending his "right" to publish unmeaningful statements and placeholders like "the district has some significance" (as noted above, this is a placeholder with no actual meaning), "the village and the district are substantially similar" (yes, I know what this statement is supposed to mean, and I know that two people agreed to this wording, but that does not justify insisting on placing this kind of inherently meaningless statement in multiple locations in article space -- where at best it will mystify readers), "it covers part or all of the neighborhood/village/hamlet" and "it may or may not include ZZZ School..." (those two bad examples have, happily, been replaced with much better content), and "it has a cut stone ring somewhere and rusticated brownstone curbing somewhere else" (that is also no longer in article space, and I hope it doesn't get restored); and to cite as a reference the elusive "____ (, 19). "National Register of Historic Places Inventory-Nomination: __". National Park Service. and Accompanying ____ photos, exterior and interior, from 19___".

My constructive purpose in removing content like that is to reduce the amount of garbage content in Misplaced Pages article space. I continue to contend that removing this content is for all intents and purposes the same as removing vandalism. This kind of stuff is damaging to the integrity of Misplaced Pages, and Doncram has been fully apprised of the issues with it. Moreover, when experienced users publish that kind of "cruft" in article space, it is in some respects worse than the obvious forms of vandalism that we see so frequently. A new contributor should not need any help to recognize that it is unconstructive to add statements like "Jason is a moonpie" to encyclopedia articles, but a new user can be seriously misled if they see an experienced user adding fill-in-the-blanks sentences to articles (or creating whole article pages from fill-in-the-blanks statements).

I'd like Doncram to agree not to publish rough drafts and outlines for articles in article space (this content is, however, acceptable in user space, project space, or on talk pages, and some placeholder sentences and notes can be appropriate as hidden comments in articles) and not to publish placeholder statements in articles.

Regarding "substantially similar," Doncram is play-acting when he says he is surprised to learn that I consider those "substantially similar" statements to be inappropriate in article space. I've told him that repeatedly, and explained my reasoning at ridiculous length. His consistent defense of these statements is that two Misplaced Pages contributors agreed (or at least acquiesced) to the use of this wording. Unfortunately, without the context provided by the talk pages where that wording was hatched (where it is clear from the context that "similar" refers to similarity in the size and geographic extent of the "village" and the "historic district") it is utterly unclear what the wording means (if readers search Misplaced Pages for an explanation, they might conclude from the article "substantial similarity" that there is a copyright dispute between the village and the historic district). Furthermore, in most instances it would be philosophically impossible to prove or disprove these statements (even with sources) due to the lack of precise geographic definitions for the areas discussed. I guess that I need to accept that Doncram owns the articles where these statements are made, and because I am a female (or something) I am unworthy to suggest that they don't make sense.

As for edit warring, most edit wars involve more than one party, and I do believe that Doncram has been engaged in at least as much edit warring as I have. As an example, look at High Street Historic District (Hartford, Connecticut), one of the articles that had much recent activity:

• January 27 (date refs are in US Eastern time) - Article created by Doncram, including the language "the placeholder sentence "The district has some significance".
• January 31 (about 4 days later) - Orlady commented out that sentence.
• Seven hours later - Doncram reverted Orlady's edit.
• February 1, 27 hours after Doncram's edit - Orlady reverted Doncram's edit.
• Feb 2, 11 hours after Orlady's edit - Doncram reverts Orlady's edit.
• Feb 3, 15 hours after Doncram's edit - Orlady reverts it.
• Feb 3, 9 hours later - Doncram reverts Orlady.
• Feb 3, 2 hours later - Orlady reverts Doncram.
• Feb 3, 25 minutes after Orlady's edit - Doncram reverts and adds a couple of words to the sentence. (After that addition, this historic downtown area is stated to have "some significance in architecture and commerce." That probably could be said about virtually any city's downtown...)
• Feb 3, 5 hours after Doncram's edit - Orlady reverts with new reason ("that I judge not to accurately reflect the content of the reference cited")
• Feb 3, 4 minutes after Orlady's edit - Doncram reverts.
• Feb 3, 6 minutes after Doncram's edit - Orlady reverts, saying "The district has some significance in architecture and commerce" is not supported by source.
• Feb 3, almost 2 hours after Orlady's last edit (and about 8 hours ago, as of now) - Doncram reverts, saying "It does have that significance--or at least that is what it says in the source. Read the stupid source, Orlady."

In the last 24-hour period in that edit history, I count 4 reverts by Doncram and 4 reverts by Orlady. 'Nuf said. --Orlady (talk) 04:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) All I see Orlady doing is blaming her actions on Doncram: "a new user can be seriously misled if they see an experienced user adding fill-in-the-blanks sentences to articles". What about the millions of non-admins who see you edit warring, and not having to answer to it by being blocked like they would? It's time to step up and take responsibility for your actions. Clearly it's not going to stop. You're the admin and need to be held to a higher standard then other users. CTJF83 chat 04:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You have both been very naughty, 100 000 edits between you and two clean blocks logs, squabbling over The district has some significance., you are both to have your noses dipped in gravy and licked clean by a big poodle until you realize the silliness of your ways and promise never to do it again. Off2riorob (talk) 04:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't see sentences like, "The district has some significance," as vandalism. I do see them as sloppy article writing, though. Here's another example from Art Troutner Houses Historic District: When it was initially created on October 15, 2008, the article had this narrative: "The houses are, indisputably, houses. At least one looks like an A-frame. At least one has a carport." It wasn't until April 11, 2009, that another editor removed this sentence. Again, that isn't vandalism, but it's seven months that Misplaced Pages had an embarrassing sub-stub description of a historic district. And that's for a historic district that has the NRHP nomination form online!

So, my take on it is: Sloppy writing isn't vandalism. Edit warring over sloppy writing is still edit warring. Orlady, I'd recommend you don't label bad writing as vandalism. These problems could be avoided if Doncram would write articles that comply with WP:STUB when they're created, but I suspect that Doncram has interests at mind other than writing complete articles off the bat. As evidence, there's a continuing dispute between Doncram (talk · contribs) and Polaron (talk · contribs), and between Doncram (talk · contribs) and Orlady (talk · contribs), and I think Doncram has a general sense of ownership over his articles, and indeed over a lot of things that happen at WP:NRHP. I think it's time to submit a WP:RFC/U. Doncram's disputes have been aired in quite a few forums, generating more heat than light.

I hope my comments "have some significance". --Elkman 05:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - "Do not continue a dispute on this page." Please note proper examples (as seen in earlier cases on this page) of how WP:3RR reports are to be filed. This very lengthy discussion does not belong here, but on the talk page... Doc9871 (talk) 13:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

New proposed closure - I withdraw my above suggestion that the case be closed with no action. The great length of the thread shows that the NRHP dispute is still causing trouble and annoyance, and may be interfering with work on articles. This has continued for seven months. I think the best closure is with editing restrictions for Orlady, Doncram and Polaron. I've made one suggestion over at User talk:Acroterion#Another idea for admin action on NRHP. Other proposals for ending the dispute are welcome. EdJohnston (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This 3RR case is about Orlady following my edits around, seemingly to impose interruption and contention, into areas of wikipedia not subject to any dispute about article structure (whether a NRHP article should be merged or not with any place). The review of all CT NRHPs is separate and nearly complete, in a process managed by Acroterion. This 3RR is not the place for a full discussion, but I would like for Orlady to be advised to cease following me around, and for her to avoid contact where possible. I do not follow her around to articles unrelated to my clearly established editing interests. She has previously been advised to refrain from making personal-based comments about me and my motivations. I have usually/often refrained from responding when she has done so, anyhow, but in some cases I have felt it necessary to respond. In a few cases when her claims about me amounted to either outright lying or reckless disregard for the truth, i have called her on that. This current kerfluffle started by her following me to a new domain, and my asking her politely enough to refrain, which she followed up by re-interrupting into over-3RR status. Orlady has followed me and contended with me apparently for 2 years now. She has repeatedly interpreted requests to her to tone it down, to back off, as a "dare" to which she has responded by escalation. Again, this 3RR is not the place to have a full discussion, but please note exactly what happened here: i asked her to back off, and she only accelerated and in fact went into 3RR violation. This incident, posed narrowly, has nothing to do with creating new articles or redirects (what EdJohnston's suggestion at A's Talk page addresses). --doncram (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:90.52.58.71 reported by User:HelloAnnyong (Result: )

Page: Dieudonné M'bala M'bala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 90.52.58.71 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 23:12, February 3, 2010
• 2nd revert: 09:01, February 4, 2010
• 3rd revert: 11:10, February 4, 2010
• 4th revert: 13:19, February 4, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 13:05, February 4, 2010

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , among others.

Comments:

— HelloAnnyong 13:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Jstanierm reported by CTJF83 chat (Result: )

• Three-revert rule violation on

Same-sex marriage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jstanierm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 16:29, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "No opposition on talk page so introduced current legal issues regarding human rights to the LEDE")
2. 17:47, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341914254 by Quietmarc (talk)")
3. 17:56, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341926806 by Quietmarc (talk)3RR. You're pushing your POV by trying to exclude cited material. Please stop.")
4. 18:17, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341930600 by NatGertler (talk) Consensus has been reached. If you have comments please discuss on talk page.")
5. 18:25, 4 February 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 341931745 by Ctjf83 (talk)I invite you to read the talk page discussion (which you have not apparently done)")

• Diff of warning: here

—CTJF83 chat 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring