Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:48, 3 October 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.

User:Stiarts erid reported by User:2602:306:BD20:C060:48F4:F811:1134:9984

User repeatedly engaged 3RR, first on The Fog (2005 film) and now George of the Jungle 2.--2602:306:BD20:C060:48F4:F811:1134:9984 (talk) 19:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Page: George of the Jungle 2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Stiarts erid (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:

Comments:

• Note Re: The Fog, Stiarts erid was previously warned as a result of this discussion
• Note Re: George of the Jungle 2, it appears that the editor stopped after the most recent warning.
• Comment I have added the formatted report above to allow for action as needed. --Tgeairn (talk) 20:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lollywoodcafe reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:Blocked)

Page: Malik Noureed Awan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lollywoodcafe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Previous version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 27 September
2. 27 September
3. 28 September
4. 30 September
5. 30 September

After the block expired:

1. 2 October
2. 2 October
3. 2 October

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Welcome message with link to EW policy, Edit Warring warning, EW Warning after the block

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Malik Noureed Awan#Problems with the article

Comments:

A single purpose account dedicated to promotion of the subject is persistently edit warring without participating in any discussion at the talk. --SMS 06:29, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked - 31 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 13:20, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

And, the editor immediately reverts after block expiration. --Tgeairn (talk) 03:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have removed the result from header so this report catches admin attention. --SMS 03:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Blocked for a week by User:Barek. --SMS 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:128.147.45.149 reported by User:Mike Rosoft (Result: Blocked)

Page: Cehu Silvaniei (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (See also the user's edits at Szilágy County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs))
User being reported: 128.147.45.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Original revision:

The user is adding unreferenced material/original research to the two articles; when reverted, restores his version and continues expanding it.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. dif1
2. dif2
3. dif3
4. dif4

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (Not on article talk page; asked to stop and explain the edits on user talk page, to no avail. See above.)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ajaxfiore reported by User:AbuRuud (Result: Blocked)

Page: Jorge Erdely Graham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ajaxfiore (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:

Page: Casitas del Sur case (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ajaxfiore (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: This case involves the same information over two different pages

AbuRuud (talk) 23:42, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Although I was a bit troubled by the reverts by the new account, the combination of the edit warring and WP:BLP issues was too disruptive. Because of the WP:BLP problems, I have reverted Ajaxfiore's edits on both articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Nobody is perfect and i am nobody (Result: No action)

Page: Mahabharat (2013 TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's 3RR:

TheRedPenOfDoom has been removing many articles and removing the sourced material. He has been removing it and vandalizing. I've done more than three reverts within a 24 hour period, and that I've probably earned some blocking too.)

This user continues to revert edits despite a talk page consensus, and despite repeated requests to engage in a talk page discussion.

Nobody is perfect and i am nobody (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2013‎ (UTC)

It's impossible to hit 3RR with four unrelated edits on three different articles. Feel free to submit again if you have actual evidence of edit warring.—Kww(talk) 01:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Can we please have an independent admin comment here, not someone with a track record of jumping at Red Pen's call when he needs a block threatening. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment As Kww pointed out, the provided diffs do not (and cannot) illustrate a bright-line violation. I reviewed each article, and I would have made the same reverts. The only difference would have been the unsourced Kunchacko Boban filmography, where I would have cut much more (Upcoming Movies? Opted Out Movies? Really?) and merged back into the BIO article (it would be nice to see the filmography and awards combined, for instance). The other two articles given were very clear (wrong article on one and WP:ELNO on the other). TRPoD may not be making many friends in those frequently debated subject areas, but the edits were good and forward what we are up to here. --(Non-administrator comment)Tgeairn (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:174.89.214.57 reported by User:Br100x (Result: Semi)

Page

Corn dog (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 01:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC) ""
2. 02:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC) ""
3. 02:04, 1 October 2013 (UTC) ""
4. 03:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Dont tell me your freezer is also full of cheap corndog hahah...."
5. 03:29, 1 October 2013 (UTC) ""

Comments:

User continues to edit war on Corn dog after repeated warnings on talk page and edit summaries. br100x 03:34, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected three days by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Bradford4life reported by User:Besieged (Result: 24 hours)

Page

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

User being reported

Bradford4life (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:28, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
2. 18:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
3. 18:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
4. 18:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
5. 18:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "/* In popular culture */"
6. Consecutive edits made from 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC) to 18:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
   1. 17:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575283134 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
   2. 18:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575284440 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
   3. 18:06, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575285997 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"
   4. 18:08, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575308895 by Indiasummer95 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:22, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Bradford. (TW)"
2. 18:25, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Notice: Conflict of Interest on Bradford. (TW)"
3. 18:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Ownership of articles on Bradford. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User apparently has no interest in reading or responding to notices or warnings, and has not attempted to engage with me or - apparently - anyone else, not even bothering to use edit summaries explaining their actions or reasons, and continues to remove content in an apparent assumption of article ownership. besieged 18:32, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 02:23, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Smj91791 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: Blocked)

Page: Expansion of Major League Soccer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Smj91791 (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:

• warning that we were both at 3RR
• warning that editor had exceeded 3RR

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor attempted to discuss on my talk page and I moved it to the article page and responded there under the section What the H*ll.., the section title was the other editor's as started on my talk page.

Comments:

I was just adding information in regards to Minnesota should be on the contenders list. Creditable sources state the behind the scenes discussions have been going on for 2-3 weeks. Each time the comments, they are revert without cause. If the three revert edit rule applies then this rule need to also applied to my executer. He revert my information more than three times. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I reverted three times only and I warned you that we were both at 3RR and attempted to discuss between reverts as can be seen from the talk page. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

As a neutral observer, I have serious concerns whether User:Smj91791 has sufficient WP:COMPETENCE to be a productive editor to the encyclopedia. Beyond all the issues involved in the current dispute (edit warring, original research, relying on blogs, trying to add "behind the scenes discussions") the more troubling issue is that the user's talk page, the article talk page and article history are littered with warnings to the user to stop copy-pasting copyrighted content into the article. However, the plagarism has continued right up until today. I think some sort of administrative action is required here until Smj91791 can demonstrate that they understand our copyright policy. TDL (talk) 20:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree with TDL. The talk page of the article in question also has one section with two warnings to Smj91791 for the same. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

The final edit was an attempt to remove any copyright issues. The situation with the Minnesota expansion bid is no different than that of Atlanta. Additional sources will be added shortly. Their are few editors on the site believe that their information is the only creditable information. Its their way or no way. I was simply trying to add additional information to current state of the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smj91791 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Your final edit also removed my tags on the weak sources, for the second time.

If you add more sources, make sure they meet the requirements at WP:RS. Adding information is good. Adding bad information isn't. It's not that I believe my information is the only credible information, I believe that blogs are not usually reliable. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:18, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lindodawki reported by User:Goodsdrew (Result: Warning)

Page: Latin America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Lindodawki (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:

This user has been trying to add a paragraph about an evangelical gospel band in Brazil to a section in the article Latin America. The content is not notable for a section summarizing all of the music of Latin America. The user has made no attempt to discuss his edits on the talk page, and has not engaged with me after I've tried to start a discussion on his talk page to discuss it on the article talk page. The user was temporarily blocked from editing for 48 hours on September 28 for edit warring (see here: and was warned to discuss his proposed edits on the article's talk page. He has failed to do so and continues his edit warring instead.Goodsdrew (talk) 21:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

• Warned Only because he hasn't reverted in over 24 hours. Please let me know if he continues and I'll block. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Campoftheamericas reported by User:Noformation (Result: Blocked)

Page

Water fluoridation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:40, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 573617661 by Jmh649 (talk), since he incorrectly marked the IQ change as 0.4"
2. 01:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Restored addition by User:Podiaebba There was no consensus for removal"

First block Reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This editor has not breached 3RR today (yet), rather, the diffs above show a continuation of the previous edit warring this editor was blocked for recently. While it is not the same exact edit, it is once again on the subject of IQ and water fluoridation, demonstrating that the editor has refused to engage in consensus building..

If you read through the talk page you'll also notice a failure to adhere to sourcing standards, IDHT behavior, ignoring consensus, and attempts to push a WP:FRINGE POV (see talk in general).

Because this page is under discretionary sanctions I would request in addition to what ever the result is here that the editor be formally warned about WP:ARBPS

Note that I am no longer actively involved in this dispute - I saw the reverts on my watchlist and thought it appropriate to report but I doubt I will have the time to stick around and comment. Nformation 02:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I restored a previous edit, that had been on the page for some time and accepted into the article by User:Podiaebba (although it was initially changed to incorrectly assume that a statistic was equal to the actual IQ drop, by User:Jmh649). If anything, there is a meatpuppetry on this page towards driving off anyone with research that doesn't agree with the current NPOV deficit. Campoftheamericas (talk) 02:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Meatpuppets are removing NPOV tag on article Campoftheamericas (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

No, you're just edit warring. Seek consensus on the talk page. Maybe a rewording will get the content included, but edit warring won't do. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Serious edit warring now. We need a quick block. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I added diffs for a 3RR violation and the diff for a previous 3RR block. There's mainly a WP:COMPETENCE issue here as demonstrated by the talk page. At the very least the user should be topic-banned from controversial articles. The user needs to develop some experience editing and interacting with others. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Up to six reverts in 24 hours. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:05, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Now 7 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:11, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

User:TheOldJacobite reported by User:BattleshipMan (Result: No violation)

Page: Ransom (1996 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheOldJacobite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1
2. 2 (my first revert)
3. 3
4. 4 (my second revert)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
TheOldJacobite says that full character names are in cast section and should not be require in plot summaries. But they are things like full names, occupations and such that are at much should be on plot summaries. TheOldJacobite just doesn't seem to get it. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

He has reverted all of two times, as have you. It's a bit much trying to get someone blocked after they have reverted twice. Simply put he hasn't violated 3RR. Since you are the one making the bold edit by adding the character names, I urge you to comply with WP:BRD and start a discussion on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

If you seen the edits on Ransom (1996 film), you know what I mean. There we're removals which are wrong and unnecessary, since the character's occupation and relations we're removed in the plot summary. You want to explain something about that reason. Not to mention that TheOldJacobite sometimes can be confrontational and states that full characters names should not be put on the plot summaries which they are mainly put on there. What about other movie articles that don't have cast sections and without full characters names in the plot summaries. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I stated my reasons in my edit summary and I stand by them. BattleshipMan should have stated his reasons on the talk page, rather than galloping off to this noticeboard, especially when there was no 3RR violation. It takes two to edit-war. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:16, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:86.170.97.182 reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Protected)

Page

Pier Paolo Pasolini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:35, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575328200 by N0n3up (talk) you are the one being arbitrary, you have given no reason for keep removing salo, just because you may not like the film it does not change it's reputation"
2. 20:09, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575336102 by N0n3up (talk) well at the moment with Aunva6's opinion it's two against one that you're in the wrong"
3. 20:15, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575336938 by N0n3up (talk) how thick are you? i was using two against one as an example of consensus"
4. 20:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575337822 by N0n3up (talk) salo is pasolini's most famous, albeit infamous work, it stays"
5. 21:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575342441 by N0n3up (talk) yes exactly, it's hard to find another filmmaker so synonymous with one of his works than pasolini is with salo"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pier Paolo Pasolini. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

violated 3rr -- Aunva6 03:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 02:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:N0n3up reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Protected)

Page

Pier Paolo Pasolini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

N0n3up (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid possible vandalism 575241039 by 31.50.150.116 (talk) Please stop doing arbitrary edits, take it in the talk page first."
2. 18:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "The work is already mentioned down below."
3. 20:05, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid possible vandalism 575332675 by 86.170.97.182 (talk) Until you decide to resolve this problem and reach consensus, you must stop."
4. 20:12, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575336604 by 86.170.97.182 (talk) Message talked problem, "two against one" is not in the Misplaced Pages rules, please use the talk page to resolve problems."
5. 20:20, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid vandalism 575337311 by 86.170.97.182 (talk)"
6. 20:59, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 575337997 by 86.170.97.182 (talk) Not exactly, read some of his article."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:27, 1 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Pier Paolo Pasolini. (TW)"
2. 03:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Pier Paolo Pasolini. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

this editor's intent is in the right place, but unfortunately, he is persisting in the edit warring. he violated 3rr after my warnings. I attampted to expain to him on my talk page what he was doing wrong, but i'm not sure I got the message accross. -- Aunva6 03:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 02:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:71.236.134.156 reported by User:UseTheCommandLine (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Propranolol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.236.134.156 (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:

This IP editor has been attempting to insert plot details about a science fiction book into the article under the heading of "in popular culture." I see no indication that the book in question is particularly notable as an example of popular culture, and it seems promotional to insert a reference to a book/author with relatively limited coverage (though still qualifying under WP:N) Into a highly trafficked article about a medicine. The most recent attempt also introduced some unreferenced assertions, the actual substance of which are touched on elsewhere in the article. From the initial edit I have attempted to engage on the talk page but the editor has not been forthcoming. -- # ▄ 13:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 02:11, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:208.54.87.175 reported by User:Jamesx12345 (Result: 24 hours)

Page

Tommy Merritt (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:58, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Please do not game the system and do remember the Boomer rang effect."
2. 15:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Your ignorance and agenda pushing is showing. The 2nd Amendment is part of the Bill of Rights and thus a right. Get informed before posting your uninformed opinion."
3. 15:42, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Some limited in English comprehension have a hard time understanding traditional and same sex marriage are not the same. Marrying your mom or sister is not traditional but is same sex. You are the ones pushing a POV, that's easy to see by your edits."
4. 15:31, 2 October 2013 (UTC) "Observe 3RR"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Warned in edit summary, but they clearly know the policy anyway. Possibly the same user over the past few days on a dynamic I.P. James12345 16:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• This is also the same person as 172.56.37.0 (you're right, James; even if it weren't clear from the behavior at this one article, the user has been harassing me for weeks under various 208 and 172 IPs), so add two more reverts and some more nasty harassment. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately I don't understand much of what they're saying... James12345 18:57, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• JamesX12345 is now canvassing on the above article. He has edit warred, canvassed, and gamed the system. It is also possible he was canvassed to the article in the first place through Roscelese. But it clear he indeed is now canvassing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.87.175 (talk) 16:27, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
  • More evidence of canvassing by Jamesx12345 below:

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
October 2013 Hello, I'm Jamesx12345. I wanted to let you know that I undid one of your recent contributions, such as the one you made with this edit to David Douglas Duncan, because it didn’t appear constructive to me. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. James12345 15:53, 1 October 2013 (UTC) Please refrain from making test edits in Misplaced Pages pages, such as those you made to David Douglas Duncan with this edit, even if you intend to fix them later. Such edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. ... discospinster talk 16:24, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Misplaced Pages, as you did to User:Jamesx12345 with this edit, you may be blocked from editing. ... discospinster talk 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC) This is your last warning. The next time you make personal attacks on other people, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. James12345 16:29, 2 October 2013 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. Both JamesX1235 and discospinster are edit warring on Tommy Merritt and this shows tag team edit warring game. An IP check on both of them is called for to determine if they are the same editor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.87.175 (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2013 (UTC) Dealing with an Agenda Pushing Editor Jamesx54321 cannot figure out basic use of the English language and suffers from an English comprehension handicap. He edits to push an ill informed agenda and does not grasp basic words like rights and traditional. James X oooo was vandalizing another editors well written contribution because it did not fit his agenda. He is a skilled edit warrior and is gaming the system here. I would support temporary ban for Jamesx12345. 208.54.87.175 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting that, to be honest, but I'll live. James12345 16:40, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Blocking as a procedural measure, but he appears to have switched IPs by now. Let me know if you spot any more of them. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:08, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Petwil reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24 hours)

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• Undid revision 575508656 by LuckyLouie (talk)" at Today at 8:19 PM
• "Undid revision 575505195 by LuckyLouie (talk) Define "primary source." Is the Huffington Post a "primary source?"" at Today at 7:29 PM
• "Undid revision 575494418 by Dmol (talk) Again, state your reasoning for the edits, under wikipedia protocol, please. You can not revert edits just because you don't like them." at Today at 5:34 PM
• "Undid revision 575492881 by Dmol (talk) State a justification for removing my edits. Thank you." at Today at 5:11 PM

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

  — Jess· Δ♥ 01:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 02:03, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Ryulong reported by User:Adam Cuerden (Result: No action)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Anime- and manga-related articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AManual_of_Style%2FAnime-_and_manga-related_articles&diff=575527977&oldid=575506062
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AManual_of_Style%2FAnime-_and_manga-related_articles&diff=575532403&oldid=575530397
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AManual_of_Style%2FAnime-_and_manga-related_articles&diff=575533850&oldid=575533714
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages%3AManual_of_Style%2FAnime-_and_manga-related_articles&diff=575546871&oldid=575544581 immediately followed by the exceptionally controversial (This supposed guideline has never had any approval vote by the community)

Note: Shortly before he went to 4RR, he posted this to the talk page, in which he stated he was fully aware he was at 3 reverts, and would be in violation of 3RR if he reverted again (!!!).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

ChrisGualtieri and Adam Cuerden were gaming the system by both introducing controversial changes to this page without any discussion, even while a discussion against their merits was being performed on the project talk page. If I am blocked for edit warring then they should be as well.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:27, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Regardless, I have self-reverted the removal of the {{disputed-inline}} as Adam Cuerden has properly shown me that it is used on project pages, so I am at 3 reverts again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 09:33, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

May I point out that the supposed "gaming the system" that Ryulong wants me bliocked for is makign a change (per WP:BRD, and, when it was reverted, marking the text with {{disputed inline}}. Ryulong has a severe battleground mentality here, and I'm not quite sure how I am meant to work with someone who thinks tagging disputed text is worthy of me being blocked for gaming the system. (or, for that matter, who thinks that when you see text on a page that doesn't make any sense to you, that trying to edit it into something that makes sense is gaming the system) Adam Cuerden 09:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I've realized my mistake in the series of events and I am sorry for making these accusations. The self revert has still happened which means I am still at #3 and I will not be doing anything else to the project page for some time.—Ryulong (琉竜) 10:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Ryulong. I'm sure we've all made mistakes. I request closure of this with no action. Adam Cuerden 10:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Ryulong has a chronic problem with edit warring and ownership. Ryulong knows better and his bad faith and insults have caused much issue, coming straight off the ANI about his behavior. Ryulong does have a severe battleground issue. The page is protected for now, but Ryulong knows better and considering he violated 3RR after I warned him shows the hostile mentality. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:35, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Declined This situation is also being discussed on ANI (Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Ryulong again), so I'm procedural closing this report with no action taken. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

User:MoonMetropolis reported by User:Jeremy112233 (Result: both 24 hours)

Page: The Oregonian (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MoonMetropolis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=The_Oregonian_(film)&diff=575481405&oldid=575472800

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revert 1
2. Revert 2
3. Revet 3
4. Revert 4
5. Revert 5
6. Revert 6
7. Revert 7

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:MoonMetropolis#The_Oregonian

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Here is where I've tried to explain why the improvement tags are valid for the page: https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:The_Oregonian_(film). The user appears to be using IP-addresses to make his argument for him. After I requested a sockpuppetry investigation, mysteriously the IP-addresses disappeared and the user resumed the same line of rhetoric unphased. I have tried to explain in my edit summaries what is needed to have the improvement tags removed, however the user has refused to acknowledge the issue and merely wishes to revert the improvement tags without adding proper references to the page, thus asserting notability and making the need for a "no references" tag obsolete. I have tried to be civil, but receive fairly uncivil responses.Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:46, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Comments:

The page includes links to Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, both of which include reviews for the film from Slant Magazine, The New York Times, Village Voice and Time Out New York. The article does not have a "reception" section because it is a stub, but the film's notability has very clearly been established and continuing to add such a tag is very unnecessary and disruptive.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I am not disputing that the external links you have added have sources indexed within them, what I have said is that it is not good enough merely to give external links at the end of a page. In order to assert notability and to not have a "non-referenced" improvement tag, there must be actual references on the page. These could be the media links mentioned in your external links, or others, but all aspects of the page need to be cited. External links are not the same thing as carefully selected citations. So long as there are no citations on the page then the tag pointing to the lack of references is valid. So long as there are no references on the page, though the film may be notable, notability is not asserted on the page itself--because there are no citations proving GNG.Jeremy112233 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

That isn't how notability works. The links themselves prove that the film is notable. Adding in references would not make the film any more notable than it already is.--MoonMetropolis (talk) 16:59, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to add that I will not be reverting past the 3RR rule myself until this is resolved; therefore the improvement tags valid for the page are not currently up due to MoonMetropolis' consistent reversions. However, external links cannot prove notability for a page, and asserting that references don't matter is contrary to Misplaced Pages policy: Misplaced Pages:Notability_(films). Jeremy112233 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours After 7 reverts from one user and 12 from the other, I don't think either party can claim innocence here. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:48, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring