Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:51, 3 August 2013

• 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:Shovon76 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)

Page: Assam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Shovon76 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Comment: This user has been trolling me because of my opposing !votes against his proposed move requests in multiple articles. If you see, I had re-inserted all the references added by the user. I have only reverted the edits of the User:Nborkakoty, who had either added redundant things in to the article or had added purely personal opinions. Lastly, those edits also introduced bad sentence construction, grammar etc. in to the article. Instead of trying to correct those, the concerned editor Darkness Shines went in to a behavior of ownership and ordering, which may be seen from the edit summaries themselves. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 08:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well done for resorting to personal attacks, and your restoration of the references only means those references were then being misrepresented, as I had added them to support the content you had reverted in the first place. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

What about your edit summaries? And, by the way, as I said, all edits by Nbarkakoty were either redundant or personal opinions. So, the references are good to support the existing content, if you care to see. And, regarding personal attacks, have you not indulged in the same type of behavior against other editors who were opposed to your POV in articles related to Gujarat riots of 2002 and the Godhra train burning? I will leave it up to the admins to decide. Shovon (talk) 09:16, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The references to not support the existing content at all, this one you readded was to support the fact that the tea was being planted in eastern not upper assam. this reference was to support the content that there are four oil refinarys in Assam, you have used it to support "Assam has few industries of significance." which is an obvious misrepresentation of the source. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Did you look at the wiki link that I provided about upper Assam? Regarding the 4 oil refineries, the same can still be found in the current version of the article. As I said, you are picking up personal fights against editors who oppose your POV in some other articles. Shovon (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Btw, please see User:Darkness Shines' reversals in the article & his edit summaries too -

1

2

3 Shovon (talk) 09:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Why would I look at a wiki link? I reverted you because you removed sourced content and then misrepresented the sources, what exactly is wrong with the edit summaries? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I would not be saying anything more here and would leave it to the closing admin to decide on the whole issue! Shovon (talk) 09:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Although I am a new user, I am quite surprised to find that this user Shovon has reverted all my edits to the page Assam. I do stand by whatever edits I made to this page. It is clear that this user Shovon is less informed about the latest developments in the industrial front in Assam. Moreover, using 'Upper Assam' and 'Lower Assam' to mean regions/administrative divisions inside Assam sometimes generate undesirable sentiments. So, knowledgeable circles, of late, preferred using 'Eastern Assam' and 'Western Assam' to mean the same, which is more logical and hence scientific and more clearly understood even by a foreigner. As 'Gauhati' was changed to 'Guwahati', 'Madras' was changed to 'Chennai', there is no reason, why 'Upper Assam' and 'Lower Assam' cannot be changed to 'Eastern Assam' and 'Western Assam'. According to 2012 data, Lokapriya Gopinath Bordoloi International Airport at Guwahati is the 12th busiest airport of India. Dibrugarh is presently not the 2nd highest revenue yielding district of India. I had updated these and other important and relevant information on the page. Anybody can point out if a single piece of information I had updated on the page was wrong! Unfortunately users/readers of wikipedia will now be deprived of all these updated information on the page. Thanks to Shovon. This user reverted all my edits by making generalized statements '...either added redundant things in to the article or had added purely personal opinions' and '...those edits also introduced bad sentence construction, grammar etc. in to the article.' Such statements are not specific to any information/sentence and hence superficial and do amount to personal attack on me. This may be due to the information I had updated/supplemented in the article goes against Shovon's prejudice. At last I again do stand by whatever edits I made to the page and hope that the administrators would do justice to me by over-ruling the reverts to my edits done by the user Shovon. --Nborkakoty (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought that I would not comment here again till it is resolved, but the accusations prompted me to write something. Ghits for upper Assam gives 133,000 results while that for eastern Assam throws up 61,500 results. Btw, all edits by the above user were without any references. Anyone may check the article history to understand the same. At the same time, I do agree that I should have waited for a third party's opinion post User:Darkness Shines' reverts, but probably I was carried away by his acerbic edit summaries. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shovon76 has made four reverts in 24.5 hours. Per the standards used here, this is enough to justify a block. He could avoid admin action if he will agree to stay off the article for seven days and limit his edits to the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

EdJohnston, I do agree to abide by your suggested action. I also accept that it was purely wrong on my part to revert the article so many times. Thanks. Shovon (talk) 04:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: User:Shovon76 is warned for edit warring. There is no block because he has responded here and agreed not to edit the article for a week. He may still edit the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Edgth reported by User:Dr.K. (Result: 48h)

Page

Mythology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Latest revision as of 23:27, 30 July 2013 that only matters if it´s ambiguous as to what it´s referring to, it´s not though. see talk page on the long discussion that resulted in humanity. dr.k, feel free to edit the terminology section, per the agreement only including the lead
2. 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Terminology */ avoid repition even more by just getting to the quote that explains it more than enough"
3. 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "doesn´t need to be attributed. since paul doesn´t like human race, is the agreed to humanity on the talk page ok?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 00:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) to 06:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. 00:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566359180 by Dr.K. (talk) stop edit warring"
   2. 06:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "resolved via the talk page"
5. 00:32, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566358743 by Dr.K. (talk) reverting your disruption. there´s nothing wrong with this edit"
6. 23:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC) "sock investigation went well"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Bahá'í Faith. (TW★TW)"
2. 00:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mythology. (TW★TW)"
3. 00:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Mythology. (TW★TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "/* "Mankind" versus "Humankind" */ comment"
2. 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC) "/* "Mankind" versus "Humankind" */ replied"

Comments:

A few days after his edit-warring block this editor is back at it edit-warring at Mythology and showing no signs of abiding by consensus. Notice his edit summary sock investigation went well. He seems to enjoy all this disruption and shows no signs of stopping: I´m replacing humankind with humanity. Both words mean the same thing so I can change it just because I don´t like the word humankind. . I thought we had an agreement and withdrew my report yesterday. But he started again today trying to eliminate all occurrences of the word "humankind" from the mythology article. Δρ.Κ.  21:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Please see also recent edit-warring report which resulted in a 24 hour block. Δρ.Κ.  21:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• He is also resorting to personal attacks: . Δρ.Κ.  21:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I also thought we had an agreement. You said you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article but you´re back to removing it. I´m not back to edit warring. I was trying to implement our agreement when you decided to go back on it. Also, why is it edit warring when I do it but not you? A ridiculous report. Edgth (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No. The word "humanity" is still at the lead. I stuck by the agreement and left it at the lead. You removed the one single remaining "humankind", that is the problem. Δρ.Κ.  22:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You said that you would no longer contest the word humanity in the article. It seems by that you just meant the lead. Nevertheless, the editing we´ve been doing over the last hour isn´t edit warring but trying to come to an agreement after the confusion over the agreement. Edgth (talk) 22:22, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, because that is where you put it. In our agreement I was referring to your original edit specifically where you replaced a single "humankind" with "humanity" at the lead. I'm also willing to AGF you were confused about that. Δρ.Κ.  22:33, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I´m also willing to AGF that you misspoke and didn´t intend to break the agreement. YAY we´re friends now. Edgth (talk) 22:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So have you reached an agreement? Is any administrative action needed at this stage? Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Edgth has now performed a sixth revert. It is clear he will not stop. He also does not appear to understand the concept of 3RR. I recommend a block to stop this ongoing disruption. Δρ.Κ.  23:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's a good question Alex. I did reach an agreement with Edgth, subject to some misinterpretations (AGF), but Paul August, who was not part of the agreement, edited the article today in favour of the word "humankind". I happen to completely agree with his position because that was my original position and I agree with his edit-summaries. So there is another consensus forming at the present time which is not covered by the old agreement. I'll AGF and I would settle for some advice to Edgth not to revert Paul's edits because he does not have consensus any longer. Δρ.Κ.  23:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Buster seems to be happy with humanity, judging by his talk page comment. I´ve reinstated humanity and am inviting you to edit the terminology section again if you´re not happy with its current state. Edgth (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That was exactly the wrong move. You now have six reverts. I struck my comments about leniency to Alex. I now recommend a block for Edgth. Δρ.Κ.  23:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I stuck to the agreement on the talk page that you, buster and I support? Stop being annoying and move on. Edgth (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Paul was not part of the agreement and he reverted you. The 3RR is a bright line. You should not have reverted his edits. Period. Δρ.Κ.  23:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

He went against the talk page consensus so he didn´t just revert me. Since we´ve been editing all over the article trying to reach a suitable version, most of your accused reverts are not even reverts anyway and you´ve done more than a fair share of them. Edgth (talk) 23:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No amount of justifications justify going over 3RR. I had my timing wrong and when I realised the time in history was not UTC I self-reverted and did not edit since. Δρ.Κ.  00:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I´ll list them then. The ´resolved via the talk page´ isn´t one as I was implementing our agreement. The ´avoid repition even more by just getting to the quote that explains it more than enough´ isn´t one, as we were both editing the article several times like that trying to come up with a sutable version. The ´doesn´t need to be attributed. since paul doesn´t like human race, is the agreed to humanity on the talk page ok´ isn´t one as I was implementing the agreement again, minus some of the confusion. Edgth (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked 48 hours. See also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Edgth/Archive. Well-meaning advice does not seem to have made much of an impression on this editor (see "Stop boring me with your templates" on his talk page). This is the second time in a week that he has been at AN3, and his account was newly created on 20 July. He ought to read WP:EW to get clear on the definition of a revert. EdJohnston (talk) 14:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:201.215.187.159 reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: No action)

Page

You have two cows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566520095 by ViperSnake151 (talk) the image is still not relevant to the article."
2. 00:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "No, this image is not relevant. The article is about a joke. The image does not illustrate the joke in any way."
3. 22:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC) ""Images must be relevant to the article that they appear in and be significantly and directly related to the article's topic". This image is not."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. You have two cows and For sale: baby shoes, never worn

Comments:

Is being confrontational, using very strict interpretations of content guidelines instead of being flexible and bold. Has consented to an open proxy check. Is edit warring in a similar fashion on For sale: baby shoes, never worn, considered my warning about it to be "clumsy intervention". ViperSnake151  Talk  04:04, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. This IP does not appear to be an open proxy. Whether to include the picture at You have two cows is open to further discussion. Since three different editors have restored the picture, consensus seems to favor including it. EdJohnston (talk) 14:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Smithelen2013 reported by User:SummerPhD (Result:24 hours)

Page

Jenny McCarthy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Smithelen2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 01:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
3. 02:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 02:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "it was a lie"
5. 12:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "Names"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Jenny McCarthy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 02:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Dating Donnie Wahlburg */ new section"
2. 02:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Dating Donnie Wahlburg */ typo"

Comments:

Now an obvious sock has continued the edit war:

• User:Adamsjenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I suggest they both be blocked. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:GenQuest reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: 12 hours)

Page: Rujm el-Hiri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GenQuest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments:
withing two hours he reverts twice. There is a 1 revert per 24 hours rule at all Arab-Israeli articles:http://en.wikipedia.org/Template:ARBPIA I told him at his talkpage and he didnt care:http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:GenQuest&oldid=566560567#1rr --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours Tiptoety 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:32cllou reported by User:Jmh649 (Result: )

Page: Cancer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 32cllou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and with many more visible on the users talk page.

This user has been making similar changes to as the above over the past number of weeks. On July 24/25th he made a 6th revert and self reverted here after being warned on his talk page.

1. Removed fish
2. Removed fish again
3. Removed fish again
4. Adjusted the lead sentence
5. Adjusted the lead sentence again
6. Adjusted the lead sentence again and moved discussion of fish

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been ongoing discussion on the talk page and multiple requests for this user to get consensus before continueing to make the changes in question

Comments:

Please see the extensive discussion in Talk. I did not know that small discussed changes constituted a "revert". My changes today are different from prior, and were carefully discussed. I conceded the requirement for "only."] Note that all the references cited find that recommendations are made (not "proposed").] Note that the best references (American Cancer Society 2006 and 2012 do not recommend fish to reduce the risk of cancer; Jmh649's text is not accurate.]32cllou (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would like to take this argument to Rfc. Misplaced Pages currently misleads compared to the American Cancer Society references (reviews).32cllou (talk) 21:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The issue is your continued insistence on re-making the same challenged changes over and over without consensus on the Talk page, while the Talk page discussions are still ongoing and unresolved--as I tried to explain to you on your User Talk page. You've been doing this all afternoon. Zad68 21:12, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The 2012 ACS does recommend fish (as opposed to red meat) as part of a diet to prevent cancer. As does another 2011 review article and the Australian Cancer Council. But this is an issue of continuous reinserting contention changes to the article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The ACS (2012) recommends fish 'as an alternative to red meats. They do not include fish (at all) in their primary recommendations, Table I. The Australian Cancer Council was not cited or referenced in the Subject text, and I've looked over the research studies reviewed and almost all the findings are relative (IF you eat fish instead of red meat).

Today and only once did I edit to remove the recommendation to eat fish. I thought we were near consensus saying recommendations are made compared to recommendations are proposed. They are in fact made. They are made based on observational and prospective studies, but less than definitive clinical research.

I will give this subject a long rest, so there shouldn't be a need for some sanction.32cllou (talk) 22:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Except that this difficulty has existed with other articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page

Note that Jmh649 also possibly violated the 3RR rules in other articles, and that most of the subjects are now better than before my involvement. Also, please note the same group of editors (like a flash mob) who come into a discussion and immediately (they are unlikely to have been able to read the talk discussion) side with Jmh649 and find "consensus". Looking at their User pages, I'd say the group looks like a mutual admiration society. Can editors bring in friends explicitly to support their edits by thus created consensus?32cllou (talk) 00:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually it is recommended that one post at the appropriate Wiki Project such as I did here to request furtehr opinions when there is a content dispute. If you are going to claim that I surpassed 3RR you should provide evidence Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

From my contributions history, it looks like I reported your actions in a 3RR report on this page April 8th because of problems you were causing with my trying to make Cochrane Collaboration statement additions ] to Breast Cancer. Look at the associated Talk, and see how much effort was required on my part to make an (another) obvious improvement. I am alarmed to hear you requested the opinions of others, because that serves to confirm my suspicions that there are few active editors left in Misplaced Pages. Bad behaviors and wasted efforts, for example my wasted time and efforts in mammography and cancer, have driven them away.32cllou (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey 32cllou you keep making unsupported comments about me. You claim I have edit warred yet when asked to provide evidence you do not. The dif is here it states "no violation"

The issues we had at breast cancer are interesting. You attempted to claim that a leaflet was an update of a Cochrane Systematic Review and Meta Analysis., , and a bunch more. You did this multiple times despite being explained by many editors that this was not true.and . In your most recent attempt you finally admit that it was not a Cochrane review . A Misplaced Pages who is also an expert removed it in the next edit as we should be citing the Cochrane review not a leaflet derived from it.

You state "I value independent current review references most of all" yet you keep mentioning primary sources such as in this edit and you have mentioned this popular press peice both above and twice on the cancer talk page . In the beast cancer issue above you attempted many times to add a leaflet rather than the proper review article.

You continue to attempt to edit war content and wording changes into an article despite no consensus to add it and multiple requests that you get consensus first. You have made many personal attacks against me and you have been warnned a number of times for the same. Yes these sorts of activities are getting frustrating.

One more interesting bit. 32cllou states "PS you might be interested to know that mammography is not recommended at any age?" How does one deal with an editor like this? The US Preventive Services Task Force recommends screening every two years in women between 50 and 75. Screening is also recommended in Canada. Yes a Cochrane Review does not recommend screening at any age. But our article mentioned ALL this before 32 came along.Doc James (talk · contribs ·email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:132.3.33.78 reported by User:Texas141 (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Dayton, Ohio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 132.3.33.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
IP is using unofficial U.S. Census Bureau data to represent a population number that is not referenced using official 2010 U.S. Census data. This user will not participate in civil discussion and has been warned several times of edit warring and personal attacks.Texas141 (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. I've semi-protected the article for five days as the IP uses different addresses.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Petrarchan47 reported by User:SpectraValor (Result: )

Page: March Against Monsanto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

6. This may not be a classic case of constant reversion to a single version, but representative of an ongoing pattern of combative editing and disrespect for other editors, starting as early as May 28. I respect Petrarchan's wishes to defend Misplaced Pages against paid editors, of which I am absolutely not one, but I don't agree that a praiseworthy cause justifies this style of editing and continual reversion.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: .

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There have been reams of discussions on the talk page, which has been a maelstrom since the article was created.

Comments: Petrarchan47 is one of several editors who might benefit from a break from the page, and one of the most frequent reverters. Personally, I do not intend to edit the article again, at least until the editing climate is brought under control. The whole situation, but mostly the defense of edit warring as an admirable activity by editors who should know better, leaves a very bad impression. As several editors have said, editing this page has been one of their more frustrating experiences at Misplaced Pages. There are a few editors with a clear POV and editing history revolving around just a few topics who are constantly edit warring and attacking anyone who disagrees with them with a disappointing failure of civility. Dishearteningly representative was the hostile response to my good-faith warning to the user here. An anti-corporation and anti-paid editing stance might be praiseworthy, but does it justify this? SpectraValor (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't worked on this page in a very long time, until just yesterday. This situation is being discussed at ANI and is perhaps on its way to ArbCom. Please check the revision history to see who exactly "needs a break". petrarchan47tc 00:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to point out that SpectorValor, shortly after filing this complaint, tried to blame me (after a mere 24 hours of our interacting) for his inability to tolerate working on the MAM page, and his reason for walking away. This followed his volunteer admission at the AN/I that he is not being paid by Monsanto, but has probably used other accounts, accidentally. User:Alexbrn, who also works on the MAM article, suggested the night before this 3RR case was filed that I revert his (groundless) edit for a third time. It feels like possible games are being played with this noticeboard. This is the second time I've been taken to a noticeboard of any type - and both times were for trumped up 3RR charges while working on the MAM article. (Is there no boomerang for this behaviour? It's getting old.) petrarchan47tc 18:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Correction, I may have misread Spector at the ANI, he said he may have "edited some of the same articles as them", referring to family and colleagues, but I read "as them" as 'using their identity' (socking). . petrarchan47tc 22:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I suggest that no action be taken on this report pending the outcome of the discussion at WP:ANI. The reported user here has not reverted - or even edited - the article in almost 24 hours. Good advice to Petrarchan47 is to leave the article alone for the time being. Any other admin is, of course, free to take action here if they believe it's warranted, but you first have to undergo a trial by fire: read the report at ANI (good luck).--Bbb23 (talk) 00:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Non-admin comment. I'm guilty of starting that ANI thread, so I'm pretty well-roasted by now. I don't see any of this as an AN3 issue, really, so it should probably be closed with no action. That's not to say that Petrarchan47 has been a model of civility either. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I was alerted to this comment by Misplaced Pages's new notification system. User:Petrarchan47 is referring to a Talk page discussion about a completely different article (Foie gras) (after he had had, it seems, followed me there to revert an an edit of mine) in order to try and make a point about "games being played". Oh the irony. Why can't I edit Misplaced Pages without being attacked with these dumb insults and conspiracism? Alexbrn 20:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No, please reread the diff. We were discussing two separate articles. Regarding the MAM article, I asked you to revert yourself pending a ref to support your recent change there. You, for whatever reason, suggested that I could could go ahead and revert you myself, since I only had two reverts. I find that strange in light of this case filed against me, with at least two of the diffs supplied above being my reverts of your inappropriate and unsupported changes to the article. Why would you make a change without a reference? And why did you not revert yourself when you agreed on my talk that you had no supporting ref, but instead suggest I do it (again)? As for the Foie Gras article, it is on my watch list and you can see I've made contributions there somewhat recently. petrarchan47tc 22:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Better yet, here the exact phrasing from my talk page that in hindsight, concerned me:

Petrarchan47 "...Also, at the MAM article, you have just attributed the protest, partially, to a reaction to Monsanto's statements without any source for this. I would self-revert if I were you, until you do have a source making this connection. I have already reverted you twice so cannot correct it myself."

Alexbrn: "I think you can revert me again if you want (3RR? it's so easy to overstep by mistake)" petrarchan47tc 23:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

— right, so I didn't "suggest" you do the revert, I just pointed out that I thought you could if you wanted. I then made subsequent edits on the MaM article that addressed the issue that concerned you, while also addressing the issue that concerned me (which a straight undo would not have achieved). And it is not me who filed the case here (it doesn't look to me as if you are edit-warring). Are you trying to imply that I am acting in league SpectraValor to try and "trick" you into violating 3RR? Because that would be very silly. Alexbrn 05:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

You know, I've asked you a very specific question multiple times, and I notice that you never answer me. Why did you repeatedly make an edit which suggested a cause for the MAM protest was Monsanto's comments a few days prior to the event without any source whatsoever to support your claim? I hear you dodging around saying either way wasn't quite right, but editing Wiki without any sourcing puts you in the wrong, according to my understanding of the guidelines. I tried to correct your edits which put the article in the position of essentially telling an untruth, for which I got taken to a noticeboard. If someone pointed out to me that I had made such an error, I would focus on correcting my side of the street immediately and go from there. I wouldnt ask you to do it for me, and I wouldn't ignore the most basic requirement of adding a fricking source to support my edits. So I have no way of understanding how your behavior is in keeping with WIkipedia guidelines. Please reply more directly to my query. petrarchan47tc 00:05, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Ejordens reported by User:Logical Cowboy (Result: Indefinite block)

Page

Roland De Wolk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "removed libel with malicious intent of private person"
2. 04:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "deleting malicious intent libel of private party"
3. 05:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "malicious intent in libeling private person"
4. 14:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "malicious libel"
5. 14:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "remove libel posted with malicious intent"
6. 15:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "delete malicious libel of private party. delete attacks in automated attack page by bot."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Roland De Wolk. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

no policy-based reason given for deletion. clear violation of WP:3RR Logical Cowboy (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Already blocked indefinitely for legal threats by User:Gamaliel. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:DeputyBob reported by User:SummerPhD (Result: 24h)

Page

Martyr (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "KEPT SOME OLD STUFF, DESCRIBED SHAHEED AS BEST AS I COULD AS ALLAH DEFINED IT IN QURAN"
2. 14:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "discerned between the religious and secular meaning of the word martyr..... for NEUTRALITY :) . DO NOT UNDO THIS, THIS IS THE TRUTH, READ THE TORAH THE BIBLE AND THE QURAN"
3. 14:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "what are you doing???"
4. 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "why are you destroying my work,... can you not see the subsections on hinduism judaism islam etc. The word God can not be secular, so the word martyr is also not secular, what is wrong with you, how the water in Georgia :)"
5. 15:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "edit my work, don't destroy it."
6. 15:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "whatever dude, this is my new hobby untill you start editing and not destroying"
7. 15:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "DISCUSS THE REVERT BEFORE YOU DESTROY MY PAGE, AND ALSO READ WHAT I HAVE WROTE??? DO YOU PEOPLE NOT READ???"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 15:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Martyr. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Blocked – 24 hours for edit warring. EdJohnston (talk) 19:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Србија је православна reported by User:iadrian_yu (Result: Blocked)

Page: Vlachs of Serbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Србија је православна (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On my talk page:

Comments:
I have reported this user for violating the WP:3RR. As you can notice, this user is removing and changing referenced data while adding some problematic statements like "mainly the Romanian nationalists from Moldova" without any sources. Also many problematic statements like "Predrag Balašević, president of the pro-Romanian so called "Vlach party of Serbia"" - adding the "pro-Romanian so called" - and others. I have asked to stop him but he refuses and continued to remove referenced data from the article. I have tried to resolve this problem on the talk page but without any success. Adrian (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Andy the Grump violating 3RR (Rsult: Blocked Bootyshorts71 for 24 hours)

User "Andy the Grump" has violated 3RR, having made several edit warring type edits within minutes. See here: Special:Contributions/AndyTheGrump.

Andy the Grump I feel is somehow stalking me and reverting my edits out of spite. Andy the Grump also has a long history of blocks on this site, and a history of harassing and stalking users. Thank you. Bootyshorts71 (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Obvious stalking is obvious. AGF and BITE. Leave me alone. Bootyshorts71 (talk) 21:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Pathetic. Most likely Technoquat again... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say there's a boomerang about to hit. Dusti 21:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yup - starts at the Kate Garvey article, per Technoquat. When nobody bites, moves on elsewhere. So predictable. So pathetic... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Have blocked Bootyshorts71 for edit warring here Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There's the boomerang. Should someone open up a SPI? Dusti 21:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I just did that, actually. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Technoquat. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Black60dragon reported by User:Ryulong (Result: )

Page

List of Pokémon introduced in Generation VI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Black60dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

• 17:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC) ""jeez it's just a list of characters. These don't require that much sourcing." It was announced via Nintendo Direct. Try to find a source before you revert. Ill add one in a little while if you dont."
2. 14:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "If you know its real just add a source and stop warring I will in a little bit"
3. 21:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Ōrotto */"
4. 22:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "I didnt change the romanization. It was revealed on the eShop which was the one at the end of the movie. The legs on him resemble a spider and its a tree-like cyclops creature"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Something */"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 21:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC) on User talk:Black60dragon "/* July 2013 */"

Comments:

Black60dragon was recently blocked for a week for edit warring on another page and after his block had expired he had resumed this practice but on yet another page. I have made multiple attempts to discuss this and other edits to this article with him on his talk page but he outright refuses to acknowledge anything I've said to him and has also resorted to personal attacks and adding contentious information that I had previously argued with him about on this article to another article (see Talk:List of Pokémon introduced in Generation VI#Forme for more detail). Black60dragon will not listen to reason or acknowledge arguments based on Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines and instead edits based on what he thinks is right and nothing else. —Ryulong (琉竜) 05:34, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh come on. This is not edit warring. If it was then you are just as responsible. I havent re-reverted it, like you continue to do. You revert every little thing I add. Im aloud to add stuff. You cant control the page. I have done a lot for that page. BlackDragon 15:57, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It is indeed edit warring because you refuse to communicate when all I do is attempt to communicate and you refuse to acknowledge my point of view.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Um Dude Im communicating right now so I dont know what your talking about. If you remember right "I" am the one that add "Both" of the versions in one which you wouldnt do. If you continue doing it too, your also to blame. BlackDragon 18:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note. You are both edit warring. However, am I correct that you're reached an agreement on what should be on the article with respect to this one character (or whatever it is)?--Bbb23 (talk) 00:04, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

• This case should be closed as nonsense. The supplied diffs do not support Ryulong's allegations. Most of them are confused and rambling. Please note another recent complaint by User:Ryulong where he attempted to rid himself of another editor modifying his articles. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:96.248.15.44 reported by User:AsceticRose (Result:36 hr block )

Page

Shake Weight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 10:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566838059 by AsceticRose (talk)"
2. 10:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566835787 by AsceticRose (talk) it's not either"
3. 08:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566791604 by 72.43.229.66 (talk) what's the other?"
4. 23:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566680647 by Daffydavid (talk) that's why it's not cited by the ref"
5. 06:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 566420991 by Deli nk (talk) clarification is always useful. information on wikipedia should be presented clearly, and not rely on innuendo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 10:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "User warning for unconstructive editing found using STiki"
2. 10:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

engaged in edit war; constantly adding unsourced ugly content; warned several time with no effect. AsceticRosé 11:05, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

the "ugly content" explains the innuendo implied by the sourced article in clearer terms. there is no doubt that the "suggestive exercise" of women "pumping away" at a "phallic-shaped device" described in the article is suggestive because it looks like a handjob. nobody would challenge this. no additional sources are needed. understand that this is a nonissue inflated by an alarmist who started this "edit war" herself due to an oversensitivity to explicit language. 96.248.15.44 (talk) 11:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have now reverted this "hand job" content twice as well. It's vandalism, in my view. Jusdafax 12:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 36 hours. Vsmith (talk) 12:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Synthwave.94 reported by User:Flat Out (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Wake Me Up Before You Go-Go (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Synthwave.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 2 August 2013 (UTC) "(Only re-added the singlechart)"
2. 12:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "I'm sorry if there are some "Mos violations", other can also improve this article changing what's wrong. It's a cooperative work, isn't it ? nd take a look at what I did in order to improve this article"
3. 12:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "Simply correct them"
4. 11:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "No reason to revert this edit. It is entirely constructive and helpful."
5. 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC) "Changed singlechart references in order to fit the "singlechart template" and added other peak positions with their references"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 12:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Some reverts */ issues with recent edits"
2. 12:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Come Back and Stay. (TW)"
3. 12:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "/* Some reverts */"
4. 12:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC) "try listening"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

All attempts to explain issues with misusing sources, violations of WP:SYNTH, WP:MoS and breaking templates are met with an obstructive response. Currently edit warring on this article and Come Back and Stay despite attempts to resolve on users talk page, refuses to use article talk pages to achieve consensus. This user has a history of removing notes, cautions and warnings from their talk page and fails to read relevant policies. Has removed edit warring warning here . Flat Out let's discuss it 12:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but Mos are details. It's different from vandalism for example. There is no reason to revert my edits just because you don't like other changes. You don't respect my work at all.

I haven't raised vandalism, I have raised edit warring. Simply putting back disputed information without taking into account the issues raised by editors is not the way to get things done. You clearly make an effort to improve articles but you go about it the wrong way and introduce POV, issues with sources, breaking templates, and WP:MoS. Rather than expecting other editors to fix your mistakes it would be preferable if you would instead read the information that people take time to link on your talk page - WP:SYNTH is a prime example - and learn so that you are not making the same mistakes over and over.Flat Out let's discuss it 13:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I try to avoid POV, but if, like for "Come Back and Stay", I don't find any reliable references except Allmusic for example, what I'm supposed to do to improve an article without giving the impression I'm making "disruptive edits" ?

There's nothing wrong with allmusic as a source, it's your interpretation and misrepresentation of the informtion at the source that is at issue. Again, you need to understand WP:SYNTH.Flat Out let's discuss it 13:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

of that information You'll tell me I have to use the talk page but if no one answer me or if someone answer me saying I need a better source, what can I do ? That's this aspect I don't like on Misplaced Pages and you must understand this point. Saying "Come Back and stay" incorporates "new wave" and "blue-eyed soul" elements has nothing nonsensical, according to a lot of reliable sources I read about Paul Young. And I can tell you not all my edits about genres are disruptive. They often have been accepted because I managed to find good & precise references that supports my view. I was lucky, if I can say it like that, and I didn't have to use a talk page at all for what I actually improve on such articles or follow your cycle. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a matter of the edits being disruptive. The source you used to support "blue-eyed soul" as a genre doesn't support that change. You can't just use the faintest mention of a word to support your personal opinion on what a genre should be. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And for Come Back and Stay, I didn't find better sources and thought what I added was enough to improve the genre section of this article. I don't want to be involved in a genre war for this article. But again, if something's wrong about my edits, there is no reason to revert everything. Be a little bit bold and change what's wrong. It's not very difficult, is it ? There is enough editors who take care of pages to change details of pages, right ? From now on, simply respect my work, thank you. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

The problems were not only genre related and two editors tried to help you, but you simply reinstated the changes. Flat Out let's discuss it 13:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Synthwave has been very frustrating to deal with. He refuses to read policy or MoS pages he's directed to. His editing style is to make massive changes in a single edit (for example, here) in which there are maybe 25% useful changes. However, he'll also break templates and references, create MoS violations, and introduce WP:SYNTH problems. He then expects you to pick apart his massive edit to fix everything he broke, while leaving the 25% helpful intact. If you undo his changes, he'll just revert and re-introduce all the problems he created. Thus far at least different editors have tried talking to him, but he refuses to listen. --Laser brain (talk) 13:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, you're wrong, it's not a problem about reading those pages, it's a problem about how you see my edits. You won't say the singlecharts I created were useless, right ? It's not because I wrote "New wave" or "new wave" for example (which is, I'm sorry about it, the good capitalization) that you have the right to revert a huge edit as I did on Imagine. It's totally irrelevant and it's not these kind of edits which are harmful for articles, unlike vandalism. Synthwave.94 (talk) 13:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where I'm tempted to just block everyone. Certainly, Synthwave.94 has crossed the 3RR threshold, and that probably earned a block. But will someone explain to me what's wrong with this version? I certainly hope people aren't claiming "1" and "4" are MOS violations, because you have positions like 17 and 27 in the chart table, so it would be incorrect to write "one" and "four" (per MOS:NUM). I see improved citations and templated charts. I also see a reversion by Laser Brain with no edit summary. Please explain it to me.—Kww(talk) 14:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

They are MoS violations. We write numbers from 0–9 out as words in prose (though not in tables). See for example the first sentence in the "Release and reception" section of "Under the Bridge". The song went to number one. The issue at hand here is that Synthwave makes huge numbers of edits in a single session and then expects other others to go clean up all the errors he introduces just to save the one useful thing he did. I've already asked him to break up his edits but he refuses, and maintains that other people should just clean up after him. As far as my revert without edit summary, I opted to leave him a Talk page message instead explaining my reverts since he seems to be a newer editor and may respond better to a more substantive explanation. --Laser brain (talk) 15:20, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:69.2.54.200 reported by User:Zaqwert (Result: protected)

Page: Ole Miss Rebels football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Comments:

An annonymous IP has been making a repeated unconstructive edit without justification. I have brought it up on the talk page. I keep reverting it but I don't wanna be accused of edit warring so I'm bring the issue here. Zaqwert (talk) 14:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Truthwillneverdie reported by User:CJK (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Has already been warned and blocked.

Talk:Iraq War

Comments:
User simply blanks 100% of my contributions to the article, while refusing to discuss any problems he has on the talk page. He posted a few vague sentences and then gave up. Other users have discussed the changes, and their complaints are confined to a minority of the proposed changes, which does not justify mass blanking. CJK (talk) 15:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Please note I am only one of six editors who have been removing CJK's non-NPOV original research version of the article and returning it to the NPOV version of the article supported by WP:Consensus. CJK's slow edit war reverts the article twice almost every 24 hours that the article is not blocked. No other editor has ever supported CJK's version on the talk page, and no other editor has ever changed the article to the CJK version other than CJK. Six editors have been involved in changing it back to the WP:Consensus version, including me. Please see the Iraq war talk page under the heading "WP:Consensus – CJK’s edits contain original research and move article to a less NPOV" for more information. -Truthwillneverdie (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. The article has been fully protected for a month by User:Tariqabjotu.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Tim Zukas reported by Dfw79 (talk) (Result: Warned)

Page: Toledo Express Airport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 16:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 23:51, 25 July 2013 (edit summary: "")
2. 20:45, 30 July 2013 (edit summary: "delete some of the useless verbiage")
3. 01:31, 2 August 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 566779338 -- what's to discuss? The verbiage is all useless-- if you think some isn't, show an example.")
4. 16:06, 2 August 2013 (edit summary: "usual pruning")
5. 17:37, 2 August 2013 (edit summary: "One of these years you ought to try to give an example where your verbiage is needed)")

User has been warned.

Talk:Toledo Express Airport - Have attempted to engage them in discussion before making changes, but user refuses to discuss and immediately reverts items back - even after additional updates have been done.

Comments:
User appears to simply go around from page to page deleting content that they consider to be too detailed or wordy. Have attempted to engage in discussion but they refuse to stop editing. Today made some changes to clean up the wording on the article, but the user again returned and deleted even more content from the page that is detailed and specific to the article. Dfw79 (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Updated as user has made another reversion today eliminating key/specific information that has been sourced and added to the page. Dfw79 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Warned. Both of you are edit warring, although neither has breached WP:3RR. One key difference, though, is Dfw79 has made an effort to discuss the content dispute, whereas Tim Zukas has not. For that reason, I have warned Tim that if he continues to revert without discussion or consensus, he risks being blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Bbb23 - Understand your findings completely. Is alright to go ahead and revert the unacceptable changes (leaving those that we agree on the talk page are acceptable), or should I wait until tomorrow to avoid crossing over into 3RR territory? Just need to know how to proceed right now. Thanks. Dfw79 (talk) 00:34, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

You should leave the article alone and continue the discussion on the talk page until you reach a consensus. It's not just 3RR you have to be concerned about--Bbb23 (talk) 00:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC).

User:Canoe1967 reported by User:Thargor Orlando (Result: )

Page: March Against Monsanto (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Canoe1967 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (specifically pre-dubious tag)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User has not edited the talk page of the article yet, and claims to have been canvassed to edit the article by phone . Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:04, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

That is four edits in three days. The dubious tag is used wrongly. The tag was placed on a direct quote by the media. There is nothing dubious about the fact they made the statement. If the statement they made is dubious to others then the sentence should be re-worded to reflect that. See: Template:Dubious#Incorrect_uses, incorrect use 1, "to directly challenge a sourced statement as being incorrect". This article is an incredible mess of POV by editors that are trying to fight the entire GMO controversy in one article about one protest. Editors have been accused of editing on the behalf of Monsanto, creating socks, etc. The phone call I got merely wondered why the material was flip-flopping every time the caller read it. He thought there may be outside influences trying to control a Misplaced Pages article. I didn't record the call but did receive permission to paraphrase it here. I will take it off my watchlist and not edit it further. It is doomed to remain a mess until Arbcom makes a decision. I am sorry for any inconvenience I have caused. I don't care about GMO in my food as I get free greens left at cemeteries and free meat from the SPCA. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Might be a good idea for Thargor Orlando to review what canvassing is. Off wiki canvassing, one isn't really an issue that can be violated and even Jimbo Wales says that such offwiki canvassing just brings in more eyes to the article and...just receiving a phone call is not canvassing anyway.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 19:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Highlighting more as more about how this user has chosen not to engage at the talk page for an interesting reason. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Now someone has replaced 'dubious' with Template:Better source. The source is http://www.bostonmagazine.com/about/ Do they consider it as "insufficiently supported by sources that are lacking in quality"? I am tempted to email them and see if we can, once again, get smeared in the media.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Makes note never to accept dinner invitations to Canoe's house --NeilN 19:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• By my count that's four reverts in less than 24 hours, not three days. This is how the user responded to a warning on their talk page. a13ean (talk) 20:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry for my bad math. Are you going to justify why others tag-teamed re-adding a wrong use template back into the article after ignoring my edit summaries as to why it was wrong? You may also wish to justify calling a 40 year old magazine a lame source using the tag you replaced it with. Should I email editor@bostonmagazine.com for their input of your opinion on them?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:09, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Yep. There are 4 reverts starting at 13:18, 1 August 2013 another at 00:44, 2 August 2013 and another at 11:41, 2 August 2013, ending with the 4th revert at 11:49, 2 August 2013. All of them continued to remove the same content, a {{dubious-inline|date=August 2013}} tag.--Mark Miller _{Just ask! WER TEA DR/N} 22:13, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

3RR applies to tags just as it does to changes in the text. It appears that User:Canoe1967 has reverted four times in 24 hours. This would normally call for a block. If the issue is so important that (in their mind) it justifies breaking 3RR it is unclear why they have not participated on the talk page. If Canoe1967 will agree to stay off the article for seven days, a sanction might be avoided. EdJohnston (talk) 22:38, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Gunbirddriver reported by User:EyeTruth (Result: )

Page: Battle of Kursk (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gunbirddriver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Reversion by Gunbirddriver
2. Another reversion by Gunbirddriver

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of most recent attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: diff

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: talkpage section

Attempt to resolve dispute on DRN: Report

Comments:

The context of this dispute goes back some months. The issue of whether blitzkrieg should be excluded from the article or not has been thoroughly debated. A DRN report was filed about a month ago and it ended without any solution about a day ago.

The consensus of secondary sources are in favour of characterizing the plan for Citadel as a blitzkrieg (see the DRN report titled "Battle of Kursk"). Editor consensus, however, are divided (see the DRN report). Initially Gunbirddriver (and two other editors) claimed the editor consensus with 3 against 1. Well after the DRN report, it is now primarily two editors that are still staunchly against it, whereas there are at least 4 editors now in support for it (see the DRN report).

The real problem here is that:

Gunbirddriver refuses to see this as a content-dispute. For the DRN report, he summarily categorized the dispute as a mere case of edit warring and misconduct, and showed little interest in participating in the resolution of this dispute from the perspective of a content-dispute.

OK granted, I once fell short of the MOS on wikilinks and even questioned those trying to correct me, but I later learned and concurred. However, I've had enough with Gunbirddriver to the extent that I can't help but become dismissive of anything he says unless they are explicitly backed up by a secondary or primary source. But then he thinks that is condescending. I'm simply calling a spade a spade, an opinion an opinion. I just think I've seen enough from Gunbirddriver to consider any secondary source superior to any his personal opinions. In this context, his accusation of rudeness and misconduct may have a grain of truth from his own perspective.

Anyways, the irresolution of this dispute is completely to his advantage, since irrespective of whatever is discussed, he can simply report any edit I make to WP:ANI as edit warring, and cite rudeness and misconduct to support his case. He already did it before and I was warned not to go against the (initial) 3 against 1 consensus until the DRN case is concluded. The DRN case concluded without reaching a solution, but the editor-consensus (based on numbers) shifted in favour of including blitzkrieg (see the DRN report). But it is not like that matters as much as what secondary sources say anyways. And there is a lot of support from secondary sources (see the DRN report). In the DRN, Gunbirddriver did not recognize it as a true content-dispute, which only helped to hinder the dispute resolution by practically making it impossible to discuss the real problem with him. I recently edited the article to reflect a somewhat more neutral ground on the issue – for example, I reduced "classic blitzkrieg" to just "blitzkrieg" and added more citations – but Gunbirddriver has continued to removed it. He refuses to deal with the issue in DRN and now insists on making reversions. I'm nearly out of options. I will also open up a discussion on the article talkpage and see if anything can be discussed. EyeTruth (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring