Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:45, 19 December 2011

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Intoronto1125 reported by User:Cossde (Result: Already protected)

Page: Tamils Rehabilitation Organisation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Intoronto1125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Said user has removed categories from this article with references supporting the things being removed. Cossde (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected already— see above section. Swarm 04:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Noformation (Result: stale)

Page: Talk:Genesis creation narrative (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zenkai251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The edit warring is on a talk page so I'm not sure this applies. The user has been warned about 3RR and refactoring others comments.

Comments:

User had not breached 3RR at the time I posted this report but has now done so. Review recent history and it should be apparent. Update: User has now trolled my talk page with a 3RR warning. Very pointy. Nformation 08:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

• Endorse Something should be done. He has pushed the patience of the project too far.--Adam in MO Talk

• Oppose No one had the right to revert my edits. Zenkai251 (talk) 09:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  Everyone has the right to revert your edits. You are at 5 reverts now. You are well over the block threshold. Please stop for your own sake before this develops any further.--Adam in MO Talk 09:17, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This is under discussion at Incidents herel.--Adam in MO Talk 09:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Stale for now and apparently at ANI. Swarm 05:26, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Petrukhina and User:Illyukhina reported by User:Dismas (Result: 48h)

Page: Cherry Jul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Petrukhina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Illyukhina (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

This case isn't just limited to the article mentioned above. If you take a look at the edit histories of both editors, you'll see that they're locked in an edit war on several articles. They all seem to have something to do with whether or not the Soviet Union should be linked or the country that is now one of the former republics of the Soviet Union.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

There are too many articles involved here. It's a conflict between the two editors about several articles. Not just one.

Comments:

Both Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by User:JamesBWatson. Swarm 05:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Abdul raja reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: No action)

Page: Desi Boyz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Abdul raja (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User involved in an edit war with Somonlast on Desi Boyz. I am not sure user did the fourth reversion after the 3RR warning or at the same time as both have same time stamp. Reporting here so an admin may be able to decide better. SMS 18:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The 3 edits that i did are obvious Vandalism. I guess According to 3RR rule, It is permissible. Thanks. Abdul rajaT 18:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I just reverted persistent vandalism in Desi Boyz page. I already reported here that the user Somonlast is a Vandal. Thanks. Abdul rajaT 18:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I think this exemplifies Somonlast (talk · contribs)'s edits. The "UniversityLeaks" website that he/she is linking to obviously does not meet our standards for reliable sourcing, and I concur with the removal of the charges. I think Abdul raja is well justified in removing the information as borderline vandalism. I would not have Abdul raja blocked, especially since Somonlast apparently engaged in an edit war with other users as well on another page as an IP as well. Somonlast also seems to meet the definition of WP:SPA considering that all his/her edits are about or related to advocating UniversityLeaks and its point of view.Jasper Deng (talk) 04:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours, but then unblocked per IAR, considering the disruptive editing he was reverting (to be clear, it wasn't vandalism and there's no 3RR exemption here). Abdul has been reminded to mind 3RR in the future, even when dealing with disruptive editing. Somonlast has been blocked indefinitely. In sum, no action. Swarm 05:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your action. But i don't know why it was not considered as Vandalism. Can you explain me? Thanks.Abdul rajaT 07:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:60.240.231.203 reported by User:Footy Freak7 (Result: 1 week)

Page: Northern Football League (Australia) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 60.240.231.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_%28Australia%29&action=historysubmit&diff=466229172&oldid=466222355

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_%28Australia%29&action=historysubmit&diff=466253004&oldid=466229172
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=466282739
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=466407468
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Northern_Football_League_(Australia)&diff=next&oldid=466432275

This user has previous form for 3RR violations.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk%3ANorthern_Football_League_%28Australia%29&action=historysubmit&diff=466433971&oldid=466229013

Comments:

This is very frustrating. I have had to halt my editing to avoid the 3RR rule myself and have asked for help. As this IP has been a previous issue I did not feel that another warning was required (I can be corrected on this). There is a clash of verifiable evidence and he refuses to acknowledge this, persisting in one side and refusing to provide the additional evidence required that will resolve the issue. At present the needed evidence only exists as original research so it can't be added. So in effect he is ignoring the reality of the By Laws as they have stood since 1981 (as I stated on the talk page). Footy Freak7 (talk) 00:58, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Swarm 04:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Israelite1 reported by User:DePiep (Result:Declined)

Page: Israelis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Israelite1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

-DePiep (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment User has not broken 3RR yet, does seem a bit odd that a user has only made 4 edits and 3 of them are all reverts. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Those kind of edits are clearly covered by 1RR under WP:ARBPIA and the use of Joan Peters as a source doesn't suggest the editor belongs here at all. I've added 1RR/sanctions headers. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, how does one know that an article is under 1RR restriction?, surely we can't just assume a new (or even an experienced) editor knows about WP:ARBPIA. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, just seen the warning on the talk page. Never seen that before, would be very easy to miss. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Declined but only because the warnings were put on the editor's talk page after their last edit. They now should be clear about the 1RR restriction and if they break it or take other actions which appear to be edit warring should then be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this. I did not refer to 1RR. I know is might be I/P related (and so ARBPIA), but I did not claim 1RR transgression. (The 1RR has only been notified after my notification here ). And all together: no 1RR was in scope (except for the accused user).

I am here for a 3RR. Factual: R1=10:36 (Dec 17), R2=04:44 (Dec18), R3=09:35 (Dec18). The user did 3 reverts withing 23h. All were show "undo" as by automate (btw User did mark all as "minor", which requires a personal action).

You could have killed me here for "not engaging in dispute solving".

Oh, and by the way: I posted here (1st time I guess), but I did not read that I was writing a request that could be "denied" (exactly what was denied?). Just wanted to note a 3RR user. -DePiep (talk)

3RR was not broken, since it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the WP:3RR rule. The editor was forgiven for their 1RR violation but is warned not to repeat it. I have notified User:Israelite1 about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, so that's the way to read it. I learned 3RR-counting was a maximum, not a right (which is a good idea). IMO, the "just three" reverts looked suspicious enough to warrant a note here (new user, no es, no talking). Well, thanks anyway to take care. Consider matter closed. -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what was said, and you know it. If you'd warned properly in the first place, a block might have occurred ...but right now it's simply punishment. After all, discussion is the intent of the entire thing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is what EdJohnston said .

New to me is, that a "warning" counts as a "discussion". I actually added the warning as was advised on this page in the Listing instructions (and in the preload) as part of the reporting here. Both BWilkins and the declining editor (!) think different.

Also in the Listing Instructions block, actually above it in red, is the main line on this page worth reading. As I did earlier.

If one wants to improve from what was said, one could revisit my note that the wording of this page & its reporting preload does not make sense logically.

Straight from WP:3RR I dare quoting: any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

Now what do I supposedly know? -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Feldon23 (Result:No violation )

Page: List of changes in Star Wars re-releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AndyTheGrump (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User has refused to discuss or engage any communication warning him that mass reversions are unacceptable and that the article content is acceptible on Misplaced Pages, despite numerous examples provided.

• 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. AndyTheGrump's last edit to this was a week ago, and the one before that 2 months ago. Editor bringing this seems to have a content dispute with him but that can probably be worked out on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This has got to be about the most ridiculous misuse of this noticeboard I've seen. Evidently, having failed to explain how an article consisting almost entirely of original research can be justified, Feldon23 prefers to resort to falsification. It is an outright lie that I have "refused to discuss or engage any communication", as the article talk page demonstrates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems very odd that an account which hasn't been used in three years made this complaint. These accounts appear to be recently created/active who have made comments on the talk page: Special:Contributions/BridgeSpotter Special:Contributions/Feldon23 Special:Contributions/Syko_Conor Special:Contributions/Fernandosmission Special:Contributions/Stupendous_Man!. Is this grounds for a checkuser to be performed? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Feldon23 has apparently revived an inactive account solely for the purpose of making false assertions about 'vandalism' and violations of WP:3RR. You're right - the obvious question is whether he/she has been involved in the discussions under another account... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

feldon23 is an account I have used rarely on wikipedia but it is no less valid. I'd be happy to verify it by any means required. First, i have little interest in the article in question. I came upon it when someone linked me to it and i found it in the current dispicable state. So i headed to the Talk page to find that someone named AndyTheGrump who not only had no knowledge of the subject, and not only was advocating the speedy deletion of an article that had been built up over several years, but had REVERTED major parts of the article no less than SIX TIMES. All attempts at useful discussion have failed and Andy continues to promote the idea of deleting the article altogether on the basis that any list of deleted or changed scenes about a film is not encyclopedic and has no place on wikipedia despite hundreds of films on wikipedia having such annotations. Thus far Andy hasn't brought up the article for Deletion because he knows he will lose. I am dealing with AndyTheGrump as one deals with a bully. If I had simply reverted all his reversions, then I would stand accused. What Andy is doing is Vandalism plain and simple. Feldon23 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If "feldon23 is an account have used rarely on wikipedia", can you please let us know which other accounts you have been using? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

feldon23 is my one and only Misplaced Pages account. When are you going to bring the article up for Deletion? That's what you've indicated you feel should happen.Feldon23 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of the process for creating a sock puppet investigation here as it seems there is something worth investigating here. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll pass any such test. Meanwhile the points I've raised go unanswered.Feldon23 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the board for your issues. This is the 3RR board and Andy clearly isn't guilty of 3RR as has been pointed out. I suggest you move to the talk page of the article in question and raise your points there. Perhaps you could raise a WP:RFC to get more neutral input? GimliDotNet (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a welcome message on your talk page, this contains many useful links, including how to help resolve dispute. Hope it's useful for you. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Raulseixas reported by User:Yk Yk Yk (Result: 1 week)

Page: Multiple; see Special:Contributions/Raulseixas
User being reported: Raulseixas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:
Mass edit warring over the names of Spanish footballers. Has been blocked for mass edits of the same nature before. I did not warn because the user never answers any queries in English. His lack of knowledge of how the English media covers footballers is probably the reason for his intransigence. —Yk Yk Yk  talk ~ contrib 18:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week. Swarm 19:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

User:82.41.22.244 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: PP)

Page: Chris Moyles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.41.22.244 (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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on related talk pages:

Comments: This is one aspect of a running dispute over whether mock-awards presented by political advocacy organizations, intended to disparage/deride their "recipients", should be presented in BLP articles as though they were standard, legitimate awards, and whether such faux awards, characterizing the "recipient" as a "bigot" or a "bully", simply amount to abusive invective that should not be included in articles at all. The dispute is in places rather heated. In the last day or so, this IP-hopping user(with whom I've been involved in other disputes, where it has used multiple account names and IPs) has targeted the article for particular attention, repeatedly adding back contentious and disputed BLP content with the claim that no consensus has been established to remove it. (In the recent past, the disputed content has been removed has been removed by at least three different editors (myself, Noq and Osarius), while supported by Escape Orbit and the IP.) The IP's actions are clearly intended as disruption, attacking (usually in edit summaries) those on the opposite side of the dispute as "vandals" , removing comments from talk pages , and even suggesting that such repeatedly disputed content is not "contentious" .
Given both the evident BLP problems and the plainly disruptive intentions of the IP, I believe that, in accordance with the outcomes of multiple similar past disputes, my own editing is exempt from 3RR limits and requires no more extended discussion than I have already provided. I will, of course, conform future edits to whatever is determined here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 4 days. Please consider bringing this to WP:BLPN for further input. Swarm 19:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank ou. There have been several related discussions recently on BLPN recently, with a more general discussion now on BLPN AT Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stonewall_Awards - Bigot of the year "award" where I've commented. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is the first time that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who is far more guilty of edit warring on this article than anyone, has bother to clarify his edits, and he still declines to join the discussion on the article talk page. The cause of this dispute lies completely at his feet. Why couldn't he have done this at the start? --Escape Orbit 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Pseudo-Richard reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Reporter blocked 24h)

Page: Filioque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pseudo-Richard (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:
Here's the output of 3rr.php for this dispute, counting just the edits of Pseudo-Richard:

1. 04:12, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "reverting rant which, even if sourced, is off-topic in this section which is titled "Recent attempts at reconciliation"; discuss on Talk Page")
2. 17:00, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466544018 by LoveMonkey (talk)")
3. 17:09, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ Moving text that discusses recent theological perspectives to a separate section; this section is about "attempts at reconciliation"")
4. 18:41, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "rv LoveMonkey's restoration; put history in the "historical" section and recent developments in the "recent" section")

Pseudo-Richard's edits numbers 2 and 3 are consecutive. So he has made only three reverts altogether.

For comparison, here are LoveMonkey's recent edits on the same article:

1. 01:43, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored ENTIRE SECTION THAT WAS SOURCED WHY DID ESOGLOU DELETE THIS MUCH MATERIAL WITHOUT TALKPAGE CONSENSUS?")
2. 16:48, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466460105 by Pseudo-Richard (talk)reverted editwarring by Roman Catholic editors whom are edit warring")
3. 18:26, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466547111 by Pseudo-Richard (talk)reverted POV blanket deletion of sourced material address on talkpage")
4. 18:28, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ added back in summary rename")
5. 18:29, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Joint statement in the United States in 2003 */ and this one")
6. 18:36, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ since revert failed readded conent and altered content to reflect talkpage comments by other editors")
7. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ clarification")
8. 18:39, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ change title to reflect what can be sourced by source agreed upon by editors")
9. 18:49, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ partial restore will restore other parts once I complete sourcing")
10. 18:50, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Adoption into the Nicene Creed */")
11. 18:51, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored sourcable summary")

Edits 3-8 and 9-11 of LoveMonkey are consecutive. So LoveMonkey has made at most four reverts altogether on December 18. Some of his edits may just be shuffling material around or adding new text, so they may not be reverts. Other users are invited to study the pattern of edits to see if there is an actual revert war. LoveMonkey is restricted from changing anything related to Catholic beliefs, though he may edit Eastern Orthodox material. See WP:RESTRICT for details. I won't be able to look further into this for several hours,so other admins are welcome to close this if they can figure it out. The Filioque has been the scene of furious edit wars in the past. A dispute about the Filioque is the source of the split between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On the part of Pseudo-Richard, 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. On the part of LoveMonkey, I do count four actual reverts; Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Harrumph... it looks like I just barely avoided crossing over the "bright line" of 3RR and I recognize that this is not a good thing. I normally try to observe WP:1RR and I confess that I was a bit more irritable than usual this morning and just didn't have the patience to follow WP:DR and issue a WP:RFC as I probably should have.

In recognition of the principle that "both sides are guilty in an edit war", I will refrain from editing this article until LoveMonkey's block has expired. I have made a fuller exposition of these points on the article's .

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a "like" button? That's truly good of you - I wish more people who involved themselves in edit-wars (whether intentionally or accidentally) would be so honourable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:50.16.108.39 reported by User:PassaMethod (Result: 1 month)

Page: Incest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Islamic schools and branches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.16.108.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: (edit summary: better in intro. don't hide the info. that rhymes)
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

If you check the 3rd edit summary he rhymes and jokes. I want a page protection for both pages as he's just stalking me. Pass a Method talk 11:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month. Whois shows that this IP is coming from a range used by Amazon AWS. Web servers should not edit Misplaced Pages. I'm filing this case at WP:OP so that others can check my reasoning and see if a longer proxy block is appropriate. The neighboring IPs in the /16 range do not seem to be the source of any similar abuse so a range block appears unnecessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by Longwayround (talk) (Result: No vio)

Page: 1986 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 19:49, 18 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "where was this discussed?")
2. 08:40, 19 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 466598920 by Walter Görlitz (talk) per WP:BRD, yes it is")
3. 16:14, 19 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 466699002 by Walter Görlitz (talk) it's not up to me to discuss, per WP:BRD")

• Diff of warning: here

—Longwayround (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by Longwayround (talk) (Result:No vio )

Page: 1986 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• Diff of warning: here

Longwayround (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that I am at three reverts and plan to stay there. Thanks.

Fixing first diff while I'm in here. And correcting third as it was the same as the second. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I should have kept count better! Longwayround (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:RealCowboys reported by User:Longwayround (Result:12hr )

Page: Real Madrid C.F. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RealCowboys (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:

I'm really not trying to find edit wars! I notice from this diff that RealCowboys has, himself, recognised that he could be seen as edit warring and I had thought he had stopped. However, his attitude and that of another user at Talk:Real_Madrid_C.F. is also rather lacking in civility. Longwayround (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't block for 3 reverts and an uncivil comment :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I certainly am not looking for blocks in any case. Longwayround (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This editor and one other appear to be fans of Spanish rival football clubs and it's getting nasty. Longwayround has been helpful in addressing the issues and agree that he may have lost count between the two articles. If the edit wars continue, I may request complete lock on both for a few days so that cooler heads may prevail. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor has just made forth revert. Please block for a short period of time so as to not bit the newbie. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:El duderino reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: )

Page: Talk:Mad Men (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: El duderino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No. Did not try to resolve on article talk page, rather, attempted to reason with him on my own talk page after he started a campaign of harassment there, directed at me two nights ago and as an unidentified IP. Please see the following links: ; ; ; ;

Comments:

The article talk page in question contained a section that was started with the OP as a commentary/question as to whether or not the show's producers were attepting to make a statement about smoking. The OP and follow-up comments did not address anything related to the article, rather, only about the show itself. I, therefore, removed these comments per WP:NOTAFORUM. El duderino, not logged in with his account but editing unannounced with two different IPs, replaced the comments along with biting edit summaries numerous times on 12/16/11 (diffs/links listed above) and has continued doing so again today. I am reporting this not as 3RR, but edit warring behavior for purposes of making a point - with the edit warring behavior from this editor beginning on 12/16/11 as two different IPs. While edit warring at this article talk page, he then filed a frivolous 3RR report here against me - it was almost immediately removed by King of Hearts with the edit summary, "enough already". More of the story can be seen at these versions of the editor's talkpages (here and here) associated with the IPs he was using (in myopinion, using them intentionally to sock - thus, the SPI I filed as seen here: ) Based on all of the above, it is my opinion that this editor is being intentionally disruptive via WP:POINT and WP:EDITWAR and will continue to do so without hesitation (as evidenced by his continued edit warring behavior today). Lhb1239 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC) -->

User:Lhb1239 has also edit warred and this report is an abuse of the 3RR noticeboard. He has been attempting to remove legitimate discussion from the article talkpage. His various attempts to get me blocked all failed. The Vandalism report was denied. The SPI was denied. And the ANI was ignored. Three admins ruled against him and advised him to move along. Before he filed this frivolous report, I submitted this request for Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance#User_removing_article_talkpage_discussion. -El duderino (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding that the user being reported altered this report (see here); I believe doing so speaks further to his edit warring and disruptive editing behaviors. I have reverted the inappropriate changes. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why were they inappropriate? They were indeed, stale, and should not be part of this report to begin with. Both of you have been 100% involved with edit-warring on both the article, and the talkpage. IMHO, you should both be blocked to give you more than half a chance to read WP:DR. El duderino - your insistence that you're not violating WP:NOTAFORUM is pathetic - you're continuing to re-add just to piss off the other editor. Likewise, Lhb1239 is simply throwing the shotgun approach around above. How many hours of break would you both like ... 24? 48? 72? A week? You guys choose, and you both get exactly the same. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the edit to the report was inappropriate because when a report has been filed, the involved editor should not be altering the report. If it was inappropriate for me to add them initially you have my apologies, but let an administrator or uninvolved editor say so according to policy - the editor being reported should not remove them (correct?). I added them to show a history - as I stated clearly above, this report was filed for edit warring at a particular article talk page. Is it not true that edit warring can take place over a period of days? That's my understanding of edit warring behavior, anyway. I have no intention of removing the inappropriate content to the article talk page again; I'll just let the archive do it when the time comes. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

...and so, how many hours break from Misplaced Pages would the two of you like? Work it out and let me know: you'll both get the same (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you being serious? I've never heard of such a thing and, frankly, don't understand why I am being punished here. I know blocks are to be preventative not punative, so I don't see how blocking me is going prevent anything disruptive from happening. I've already said I'm not going to be removing the inappropriate content at the article talk page. Perhaps you could explain your thought process on this? Lhb1239 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:65.9.226.65 reported by User:Hearfourmewesique (result:decline - user never warned)

Diffs: Tried to communicate with the IP on their user talk page (no diff since it was the only edit ever made to that page). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Not a single warning for 3RR on their page ... one bizarre comment about WP:NINJA, but no welcome, no rules, no "what is 3rr"...nothing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Add...I have semi'd the page for now. Work it out (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Doncram reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: )

Page: William H. Allen (architect) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First addition of extended quote

• 1st revert: "restore highly relevant, fully cited and credited quote that would be hard to paraphrase, better to quote. If you don't like it, discuss at Talk."
• 2nd revert: "Restore Whitney Avenue HD mention, which specifically includes Allen house at Whitney & Lawrence, mentioned in suitable quote, also restored."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Undid revision 466760357 by Doncram (talk) Your use of verbatim quotes in stubs was determined to be unacceptable by an uninvolved admin. Stays out unless you get consensus for inclusion"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. Original uninvolved admin decision was quite clear.

Comments:

Per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs, "There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates WP:NFC (#Another question regarding consensus on article quality)."

Argh. I have had it with SarekOfVulcan following my edits and contending at every step. Today he put a speedy-delete tag on an article i was working on, which led to a DRV restoring the article (because the Speedy was wrong). He 4 times moved another article I was working on, article now at Charles E. Bell. Look at its edit history to see his actually exceeding 3RR. And this. And perhaps more. In each case I opened discussion sections and SarekOfVulcan has chosen not to discuss, but rather to escalate and confront. About the William H. Allen (architect) article, why the hell has he not deigned to comment at the Talk page item.

Something stronger is needed to address this pattern of following and warring. --doncram 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please consider recent, bizarre, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:SarekOfVulcan reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Move protected), about another spat of determined edit warring against me. Closed with no negative consequence for Sarek, oddly. I am working to develop articles; SarekOfVulcan is following, interrupting, actively choosing to combat. --doncram 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Request that this be closed.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring