Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Acroterion (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 30 April 2012 (→User:Xmike920 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: ): add). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:WLU reported by User:Bittergrey (Result: Stale)

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

• 1st revert: 21:26, 1 April 2012 WLU
• 2nd revert: 01:11, 2 April 2012 WLU
• 3rd revert: 11:00, 2 April 2012 WLU
• 4th revert: 22:59, 2 April 2012 203.118.187.167 (SPI #1 archived with the conclusion "Definitely were socks". It was later clarified to include "Probably actually not socks. All IPs highly disruptive, but editing habits inconsistent. I should have checked more thoroughly." My comments below were correct at the time they were written.)

In the light of NativeForeigner's comments here and here, would the closing admin please strike through the 4th revert from the 203. from the April 1st set, and given I wasn't socking and the second SPI is not yet closed, I believe the 4th revert from the April 20th set should probably be struck as well. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please note that the edit warrior concerned with an AN3 that accurately lists eight reverts himself filed one against me with eight reverts obscurely listed, when at the time I only made four reverts in three days. BitterGrey (talk) 07:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

• 1st revert (or 5th?): 18:04, 19 April 2012‎ WLU
• 2nd revert: 20:59, 19 April 2012‎ WLU
• 3rd revert: 22:55, 19 April 2012‎ WLU
• 4th revert: 01:48, 20 April 2012‎ 203.118.187.226(SPI #2, filed before the alteration of SPI #1, was closed without conclusion about the IP:"...were closing this...")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I know this is stale, but I wanted it on record that WLU, who reported me for making four reverts in 41 hours himself made four reverts in 25 hours 33 minutes in the same conflict. He also used a sockpuppet to do so. I didn't file this report before, since I was waiting for confirmation from SPI.

WLU wrote "I'll continue to revert, but I have nothing to add to this talk page beyond the thousands of words I've already put in." Of course, were there any substance in his "thousands of words" he wouldn't have felt the need to resort to sockpuppetry and personal attacks. He hadn't shown any interest in this article (or several others he's fought me at) before his wikihounding campaign started over a year ago. I think it is best that he leave me and the several articles he hounded me to alone. BitterGrey (talk) 14:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Update: Another editor was kind enough to revert "203.118.187.167," so far the only penalty for WLU's use of sockpuppets in an edit war. Of course, when WLU hit 3RR again another IP showed up promptly to make the fourth. A second SPI was opened. I requested a 3O and it would appear that WLU doesn't want to risk the 3O seeing a version other than his own.BitterGrey (talk) 14:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Page is now protected . WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 16:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• If any SPI clerk wishes to make something out of that case, good for them. This 3RR complaint has merit, but it works both ways: it takes two to tango and you two are the only ones doing this dance. You should both be blocked, maybe. A third (and fourth, and fifth) opinion would be very helpful, and possibly a topic ban for both of you specifically for this article, which has been a pain since at least 2006. It is obvious that the two of you cannot come to an agreement. Drmies (talk) 17:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I requested a 3O yesterday. A topic ban on both of us would be unfair: WLU's only involvement in this page (and all but one of the others he's fought me at) was as part of his year-long wikihounding of me. Furthermore, since using puppets is nothing new for WLU(eg.), and he already has three puppets in play the ONLY effect of a topic ban would be to ensure control of the article by the puppetmaster. BitterGrey (talk) 18:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

From what I can tell that directs to that long discussion on the talk page, "Fruend and Blanchard's Paedophilia article doesn't belong here". I see the two of you, I see no 3--so it seems to me there's no 3O yet. What I see is a long and tedious dispute: that you think you're right is par for the course. I'm not even saying that you're wrong, mind you--it's just that everywhere I go--your talk page, the article talk page, this edit-war thread, the SPI, the SPI archive--I see the same things, links, accusations. It's depressing. And "three puppets in play"--that's rhetorical overkill. If it's him, it's a dynamic IP, so the number is meaningless. No, the only effect of a topic ban need not be WLU's control. There are ways to prevent that, short of going to their house and smashing their laptop to bits with a diaper. I don't wish to speak for other admins, but I think we're done here. Find someone to act on or render an opinion on the SPI, maybe. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

True, requesting a 3O and getting one are different things, but I think my request shows good faith. Also in good faith, I've made do with only one position per conflict. In contrast, WLU's position in this conflict changed last week (he'd "been reading the article wrong for a very long time.") and again in December. Oh, and you might find hammers or almost anything else to be more useful for smashing laptops, Drmies :) BitterGrey (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

A hammer would work better, yes. And I'm not denying your effort in starting that 3O. The article needs help and attention from people who aren't you two, I'm afraid. Best, Drmies (talk) 20:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

"people who aren't you two"? I'm hurt. If it weren't for me, the paraphilic infantilism article would be like the diaper fetishism article. (Well, worse actually, since the latter borrowed from the former back in 2007.) There is, however, an ongoing ownership issue that needs to be taken care of. BitterGrey (talk) 21:29, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I've asked the admin who looked into 203.118.187.167, .43, and .209 to look into .226 as well. BitterGrey (talk) 19:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Given NativeForeigner's comment here, the "definitely were socks" comment is now incorrect and all 203. edits are essentially irrelevant. Though there is edit warring, there is no 3RR violation. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 19:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU attempting to close or modify my requests, as he's tried here, is typical. After he wikihounded me me to Sexology, he marked the resulting ELN discussion "resolved" not once(@500 words) but twice(@3K words) before accepting that I was right. BitterGrey (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

My request seems reasonable since NativeForeigner has said in three places that his initial statement of "definitely a sock" is in fact wrong (here, here and here). It seems like common sense to make the section reflect NativeForeigner's actual, current conclusions and take out or strike through the 4th revert(s) rather than leave up an old and misleading summary. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Please review the difference between a "request" and an edit, as well as between 'probability' and "fact". NativeForeigner has now gone both ways on SPI #1, from "definitely" socks to "probably" not. Even before this, WLU wrote "NativeForeigner's comment is a single person's opinion that is not definitive". Let's see what becomes of SPI #2. BitterGrey (talk) 14:26, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I see it as fundamentally dishonest not to note that the person who initially made the assessment has since substantially changed their mind to say the opposite of what is said above. Changing it to "probably not a sock" is fine with me. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Since you raised the issue of honesty, WLU, I'll point out that you've claimed that WLU stands for both the initials of your alma matter "my userid is based on the university I attend", and also your own initials "My user name is actually my initials". Unless both claims are true, I would consider one or both statements deceptive. In contrast, what I wrote above was correct at the time I wrote it, based on the archived conclusion of an administrator serving as a sockpuppet investigator. BitterGrey (talk) 07:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Nobody should care where my user name came from and why I picked it - though obviously I chose a pseudonym for the anonymity it provides me, anonymity you keep trying to break through despite rules against it.

Your claim about what you wrote above being correct is in fact wrong - it may have been true when you wrote it, but it misrepresented the admin's comments for three days. The decision changed on April 22nd , but you didn't indicate this until April 25th when the second negative sockpuppet report came back. I don't see that as a minor issue, I see that as fundamentally dishonest gaming - I could have been blocked on the basis of simply wrong information. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 10:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:outing is irrelevant, since WLU posted the contradictory information to Misplaced Pages himself. In spite of his own self-contradictions, he persists in distorting my comments to accuse me of dishonesty. Regarding the gaming accusation, WLU reported me for four edits in 43 hours, when he had made four reverts in 28 hours ... even if we don't count those above. WP:kettle at best. Unlike WLU, I had never even been reported here before. This clean record is something that I will never get back.

I have to admit some displeasure in watching WLU get away with sockpuppetry (according to the archived conclusion of the SP investigator, at least at the time). Perhaps vested contributors really can get away with anything. WLU seems to have some displeasure that I didn't update this frequently enough - even though apparently few if any were paying attention.

Now, since it seems to be the only way that debates between WLU and myself ever end, I'm going to let him have the last word. BitterGrey (talk) 14:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Since no action was taken when the SPI was definite that the IPs were socks, no action is expected now that the SPIs are inconclusive. As Drmies wrote (even before SPI #1 was modified), "...I think we're done here." BitterGrey (talk) 07:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Marked as stale. If warring resumes, rereport. Nyttend (talk) 12:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:ElliotJoyce reported by User:Ackees (Result: 48h)

Page: Henry Morton Stanley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Asiento (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: British African Caribbean Community (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comments:

According to my watchlist, the user ElliotJoyce is systematically going through my edits on as many pages as possible, (going back months in some cases) undoing them, even if they have been longstanding on the page. It is a clear case of harassment. This is not about a particular subject, it is a targeted campaign against myself. They have already been warned today by other users for edit-warring.Ackees (talk) 14:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

If you look at the information that the Mr. Ackees has changed on the articles in question, you will find that it is often in direct contrast to the source provided. For example, on the African Slave Page, one source in question (Digital History from the University of Houston) stated that profits from the slave trade comprised less than 5% of Britain's economy during industrialization, but Mr. Ackees changed this first to read "at least" 5% and after I reverted it, changed it back to read "approximately" 5%, both false per the source. I investigated his other edits and it appears he is going from article to article, infusing subtle anti-European bias, often in direct contradiction to the source material. Another example is the article Racism in the United Kingdom, where Mr. Ackees changed the wording to say almost the opposite of what it said previously, contradicting the source again. I have gone through his recent edits and have noticed that much of his history here on Misplaced Pages is simply infusing POV statements and wording in various articles. This is unacceptable and violates a number of policies on the site. I am not correcting Mr. Ackees to harass him; rather, I am correcting him because he is, in essence, vandalizing the pages in question in a very subtle manner that is only realized when one looks at the entire history of edits Mr. Ackees has done. ElliotJoyce (talk) 18:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – Already blocked 48 hours per another report. EdJohnston (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello; my block has expired and I would like to know if I am within my rights to report Ackees for making a personal attack against me in his edit summary on the Benin City article. Particularly, he has called me "neo-nazi", not to mention he removed accurate material which I have since restored and provided a reliable source for. Please let me know how I can bring this matter to the attention of the administrators- I am new to Misplaced Pages and I do not know how to report another user or where to report him/her. Thank you. ElliotJoyce (talk) 21:07, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.239.128.44 reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: 31h)

Page: The Passion of the Christ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.239.128.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The IP has already been blocked for edit-warring and now the block has expired has resumed with the same types of edits. Technically it is not 3RR and I've only included the reverts since the block, but the IP has failed to address the problems with its edits, so I think another block is the order of the day. The IP should have resolved the issues on the talk page before making further edits of a similar nature to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 14:43, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

IP has been blocked for 31h after I filed a request at AIV. Doniago (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Betty: be aware that you too were edit-warring. If your revert is reverted, DO NOT REVERT AGAIN. If I had actionned this one, I would have blocked both of you - 3 reverts is not a right (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:07, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think three reverts over a period of 5 days is particularly excessive when you are removing clearly unsourced content and original research, the removal of which is supported by consensus on the talk page. It is certainly well within the remit of 3RR, so I'm interested how enforcing a consensus within the remit of 3RR (to remove clearly unsourced content) would constitute edit-warring in this context. By the same token would you have also have blocked User:Doniago (three reverts of the same editor for the same reason across 10 days) and User:History2007 (three reverts of the same editor for the same reasons across 8 days) and User:Musdan77 (two reverts of the same editor for the same reasons across 5 days)? Maybe we could have a few guidelines here. When the consensus supports the removal of unsourced original research how many times as individual editors can we remove the content within a particular timeframe? Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - 31 hours by User:Alexf. Second block in four days. Semiprotection might be considered for the future. EdJohnston (talk) 19:47, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I did request semi-protection but it was turned down on the grounds it was just one editor that could be dealt with directly. I would like to know where I stand in regards to further attempts to reinstate this material though, since I seem to be barred from removing it now. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"Unsourced content" or "edits against consensus" are not listed as excuses for WP:EW. We follow dispute resolution, and tag-teaming to avoid 3rr doesn't work either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

This is complete bollocks. The editor was adding unsourced original research; this is not a content dispute that dispute resolution can resolve. It's a clear cut case of violating Misplaced Pages policy, that four editors have independently agree on. I doubt a single editor on Misplaced Pages would back its inclusion! There has been NO communication between myself and the other editors, and no co-ordination of our reverts i.e. we revert the article to remove the unsourced illegible crap that keeps being added to the article. The problem with the edits is clearly explained on the talk page and no amount of dispute resolution can resolve the problem; it will simply come to the conclusion we have i.e. remove the material until the problems that are clearly highlighted on the talk page are addressed. I won't remove the edits from the article again given your threat above, but at the same time I'm not wasting my time writing up case histories and going to dispute resolution boards just to get a clear-cut case of policy violation removed. I suggest you take a look at the what was being added because tomorrow that will be back in the article and I won't be wasting any more of my time explaining to the editor why it is unacceptable, nor will be initiating any more action against them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:14, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

it takes 2 or more to edit war. Although I sympathize, you know the rules. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

While I don't claim to be a scholar of the Misplaced Pages rules, you're saying it is written down somewhere that if someone adds completely unsourced lies to an article, that if they continue to re-add it we should just stand by and leave it in place until the dispute over their incorrect action is "resolved"? I think you're grossly misinterpreting the rules and their enforcement, and find your behavior towards a tireless contributor like Betty to be entirely misplaced. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Not this nonsense again. It does not take two to edit war. When you have one or more long time productive, non disruptive editors who are following the guidelines by discussing things on the talk page who are also taking the page back to the WP:CONSENSUS version against a SPA editor with a POV axe to grind there is only one person edit warring. In this specific case the evidence shows that the IP has no desire to learn how things are done around here. Further in this case semiprotection was asked for and turned down. As has been said in other places this misguided protection of POV SPA's is only going to further this Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard#Loss_of_more_and_more_and_more_established_editors_and_administrators problem. MarnetteD | Talk 22:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Protecting the encyclopedia is not warring. Editors working with the larger consensus should be encouraged to revert disruptive edits in an attempt to avoid even needing to file an incident here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:69.196.160.34 reported by Tgeairn (talk) (Result: 31 hours)

Page: List of countries by number of troops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 69.196.160.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 23:59, 25 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
2. 00:08, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
3. 00:23, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
4. 01:22, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")
5. 01:42, 26 April 2012 (edit summary: "/* List */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Tgeairn (talk) 01:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• User blocked by Nyttend for 31 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 19:01, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.247.125.237 reported by User:Al E. (Result: No action)

Page: Mr. Irrelevant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.247.125.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user is in violation of 3RR, and the content they keep adding is clearly unencyclopedic, but I thought it was worth noting that they have not continued to revert, and have engaged in discussion on the talk page, for what it's worth. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 16:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: No action for now, since an IP is discussing. If this happens again, ask for semiprotection. EdJohnston (talk) 13:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:182.182.71.8 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Semi)

Page: Akbar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 182.182.71.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Thats 3 reverts in 24 hours, with a reference that does not support the text. Akbar founded a new religion called Din-i-Ilahi. Therefore his previous religions should not be elavated in the infobox. He refuses to discuss anything on the talk page. Pass a Method talk 20:43, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Article semiprotected two months due to vandalism, including page blanking. No IPs have participated on the talk page in 2012. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:91.63.202.190 reported by User:TheSoundAndTheFury (Result: 48 hours)

Page: Falun Gong (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 91.63.202.190 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: suggest just looking at history:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
New account leaps right into topic with a strong, fringe point of view. Happens one day after ban of AnAimlessRoad (talk · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) whose editing proclivities and talk page forum-izing were similar. Whether the correlation is causal I have no idea. Yelling in edit summary, accusations of a conspiracy, failure to understand topic matter, immediate edit warring etc. etc. all don't bode well.

Note that 91.63.217.224 (talk · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) may be the same individual.

Update

Um sorry but I think he's already banned. The Sound and the Fury (talk) 20:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours by Drmies. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Judgeking reported by User:Xida2001 (Result: Protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:

Previous version reverted to:

• 2nd revert:

Previous version reverted to:

• 3rd revert:

Previous version reverted to:

• 4th revert:

Previous version reverted to:

• 5th revert:
• 6th revert: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xida2001 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Although I followed his request to change my edit he still keeps deleting it, I asked for comments and discussion, no answer, if he would just have a CLOSE look at the links I provided he can proof that my edit is correct:

• Page protected - Three days. EdJohnston (talk) 15:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:RolandR reported by User:ElliotJoyce (Result: Submitter blocked)

• RolandR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ElliotJoyce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user User:RolandR is hounding me and reverting my edits, most recently on the articles Henry Morton Stanley and Afro-textured hair. My own edits were reverts of a previous user (User:Ackees) who changed information on those articles that was unsourced and violated neutrality POV, particularly in the Afro-textured hair article, where the word "mainstream" was replaced with "white."

If someone can please let me know how to proceed, and also let the user User:RolandR to stop reverting my edits without a justifiable explanation, I would greatly appreciate it. I was recently blocked for violating the 3RR, so I am well aware of it at this point and am doing my best not to violate it. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Translation: "I've been Wikihouding another editor, but I don't like being Wikihounded myself. I've just come off a block for edit warring, so I'm making only two reverts on each page." I think that sums it up.

Recommendation: Please read WP:Boomerang. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:27, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I never Wikihounded anyone- my edits were to remove bias. If you look at the edits of RolandR, you'll see that they are mostly done to annoy and frustrate my own contributions to the site. And for the record, I am not aiming at making a certain number of reverts- I only know that I cannot and do not want to exceed 3 reverts. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there actual proof of WP:3RR or WP:EW, or is this discussion going to turn into the one that should either be a) on the talkpage of an article in order to try and gain new WP:CONSENSUS, or should you two go talk it out and shake hands on one of your talkpages. Otherwise, dispute resolution is thataway .... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:46, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I was neither hounding nor edit-warring. The editor, who has now been blocked again, returned from a 48-hour block for "persistent edit warring, Wikihounding and civility issues", and immediately repeated the same tendentious edits which led to the original block. There is no case to answer here. RolandR (talk) 10:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you were both hounding and edit-warring. If you look at your history, you reverted my changes on 5 different articles that you had never edited before; this strongly suggests hounding. Second, you continued to revert after I re-reverted your edits. This suggests edit-warring. ElliotJoyce (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Result: ElliotJoyce has been blocked 48 hours by Future Perfect, for "continued POV-driven edit warring immediately after last block, now on Henry Morton Stanley and Afro-textured hair". EdJohnston (talk) 13:12, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Promontorylink reported by User:Marie Paradox (Result: Indefinitely blocked for unrelated reasons)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Promontorylink's edits and behavior are reminiscent of recent edit warring by Ghostprotocol888, who was blocked not only from editing articles but also his talk page:

Marie Paradox (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

SPI filed here regarding possible link with Ghostprotocol888. 213.177.248.120 (talk) 09:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Sorry, that was me - got logged out by a server glitch. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked by Elockid nearly three hours ago. Nyttend (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:MRC37 reported by User:Shrike (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Battle of Bint Jbeil (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MRC37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

The article is WP:ARBPIA article and under 1RR.The revert was done of this edit --Shrike (talk) 15:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Teflontanks reported by User:Shakehandsman (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: (user was warned for vandalism and unconstructive editing, there is vandalism and edit warring occurring).

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Many of the edits involve almost total deletion of the article so no really much to discuss. Others have expressed concern regarding the editors bias in the talk page. Multiple parties have restored the material, I have only done so once.

Comments:

--Shakehandsman (talk) 18:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 20:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jakebarrington reported by User:Muboshgu (talk) (Result: )

Page: Cannabis (drug) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 19:25, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489200325 by Last1in (talk) Sources have been cited and are in alliance with standards.")
2. 20:17, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489520960 by Muboshgu (talk)These sources come from 2 places: The government, or healthcare professionals. I am reporting any further actions to a moderator.")
3. 20:29, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489523818 by Muboshgu (talk) These sources are valid, nothing wrong with them. Reporting to moderator.")
4. 21:23, 27 April 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489529546 by Muboshgu (talk) Info is valid and inline citations are correct.")
5. 13:50, April 28, 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 489650187 by KDesk (talk) Sources are in fact reliable medical sources. Written by doctors or members of academia holding MDs or PHDs.")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This user is pushing a negative POV on the page. Further, the user in question followed me to a different page to undo a contribution to simply be disruptive. —– Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit Warring behaviour continues with two new reverts on 28 April at 20:42 and 15:50. Jakebarrington has finally responded to repeated invitations to discuss and reach consensus, but continues the edit war without modification of the disputed content and without addressing any of the core concerns. Please take this page back to the prior consensus and help us get this talented and passionate editor back onto the WP:5P path. Cheers & Thanks, Kevin/Last1in (talk) 13:18, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Danratedrko reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: 31 hours)

Page: The Avengers (2012 film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Danratedrko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 01:01, 28 April 2012‎
• 2nd revert: 01:06, 28 April 2012
• 3rd revert: 01:19, 28 April 2012
• 4th revert: 01:23, 28 April 2012
• 5th revert 01:36, 28 April 2012‎
• 6th revert 01:41, 28 April 2012
• 7th revert 01:46, 28 April 2012‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: warning http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Danratedrko&diff=489557896&oldid=489557703

Multiple editors posted warnings on his own talk page, and multiple editors have reverted him. He's a serial vandal who after his 6th revert posted insults on my talk page

Comments:

Already blocked. Kuru (talk) 15:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:74.108.165.44 reported by User:JoeSperrazza (Result: Page semi-protected)

Page: Ed Schultz (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 74.108.165.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Page has been Semi-protected earlier this month to prevent WP:DE by ip-hopping contributor. PP requested again. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:03, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

• Page semi-protected for a period of two months by Paul Erik (talk · contribs). --Chris (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AA193 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result: 72h)

Page: Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AA193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Block because of edit warring on same article, same issue, 5th

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Afghanistan#Afghanistan in the Middle East (also the edit request sections above this)

Comments:
This is not a 3RR violation report rather a report of edit warring. User has been warned multiple times and blocked once for edit warring on the same issue and same article, but he/she is persistent in pushing his point of view without achieving a consensus on the talk page. --SMS 16:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocked - Blocked 72 hours. Editor constantly reverts as to whether Afghanistan is in West Asia or in the Middle East. I notice a string of eight edit requests from him at Talk:Afghanistan. All of his proposed changes were declined as unsupported by consensus. In the light of these verdicts, he surely ought to be cautious about unilateral reverts. He was blocked for the same thing on August 26. If this continues a longer block should be considered. EdJohnston (talk) 12:55, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:LuzoGraal reported by User:Ackees (Result: no vio)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I made serious edits removing obvious bias in the article. I also set up a discussion forum in the talk page and warned the user not to breach 3RR - the user removed my warning and went ahead with the breach

Ackees (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2012 (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. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

User:SlimVirgin reported by User:Betty Logan (Result: No action)

Page: List of vegans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:

• In this case I challenged the source that Slimvirgin used to source the entry. I reverted her and explained on the talk page that the source did not back up the claim. She subsequently reverted me, despite my concerns about her source. I challenged the source at Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#veggies.org.uk where my concerns were upheld. In view of this, I think SV should remove her entry and source unless someone comes out in its favor.

Previous version reverted to:

• 2nd revert:

• The second case is more disturbing. SV brought up the issue of the color codes on the talk page, and despite my wishes to discuss it further still went ahead and removed them. These color codes have been a long-standing feature of the article and were backed by four editors at the time (see Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians). I subsequently reverted SV and pointed her to this consensus, but she still went ahead and removed them again.

This behavior of pushing through your own edits against an established consensus and against advice at the Sourcing board is simply not acceptable. Do we edit by consensus here or not. WP:BRD does not state, be bold, revert, discuss and then do what you want.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• SlimVirgin has taken exception to my reversions on that article. However most of my reverts are:

1. Removing unsourced entries
2. Removing non-RS sources
3. Restoring sourcied content that is removed without a source being provided.

In most of these cases, these are single reverts, and I think are valid if you actually look through the reverts. In some cases the sources were restored so I requested an objective opinion at the Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Sources_used_at_List_of_Vegans. In the cases were my objections were upheld I have re-reverted. The article has real sourcing issues and it is unfortunate I am being forced to keep having to go and get rulings at the RS noticeboard. Betty Logan (talk) 02:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm only going to comment here once. Betty Logan has been reverting all and sundry at List of vegans for over a year, often going up to 3RR, then resuming the next day, which has somewhat halted the page's development. I have only occasionally tried to edit the page, and almost every time I've done it, he has reverted me. I respect his desire to keep the page tidy, but he extends this to reverting known vegans and acceptable sources, so it is causing a problem.

Today, he reverted two editors three times in all (and yesterday I believe the same), so I asked him on his talk page to stop. He responded six minutes later by posting a warning template on my talk page. I replied by advising him that, if he continued to revert, I would reluctantly report it here, but stressed that I didn't want to do that and would prefer to work with him. He responded 15 minutes later by reporting me. So we seem to be in the playground. I'll leave it at that. SlimVirgin 02:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• First of all I cannot help it if editors add entries using sources that are then overturned at the RS noticeboard. What should I do, leave them in? Similarly I cannot help it if an editor removes a sourced entry from the list. I reverted them and asked them for a new source so we could move the entry to the "former vegan" section. Also, I cannot help it if four editors formulate a consensus to have color codes and an editor decides to go ahead and remove them. What should we do in that case? Am I more wrong for suggesting to SV I am open to the possibilities of removing them but would rather have more discussion, and reverting the article to what was agreed by four editors, or is SV more right to say he doesn't like it, and then to overrule the wishes of four editors and take them out? Another editor has joine dthe discussion now and objected to SV's unilateral action: . I would liek to point out that reverting is not the same as edit-warring (edit-warring is singularly reversing the same edit. I revert a lot on that article because a lot needs reverting; if someone reverts my reverts though I go over to the RS noticeboard to get a ruling, and if it comes out in my favor I revert again. Also, just check out Misplaced Pages:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#veggies.org.uk to see what SV's notion of a "well-known" vegan and an "acceptable" source is. I am following proper procedures: revert, and if that is reversed I get another opinion. Not my fault if third opinions go against SV and his sources. Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

And just to elaborate on what SV said about "reverting all and sundry" for a year, it's actually more like two years, and yes it is sometimes up to three reverts a day. I appreciate that 3rr is not a right, but it is admin discretion and up to them to determine if the application is justified within that 'quota', so I hope the outcome of this isn't justified solely on the amount of reverting I do, but based one what I revert, and the accompanying action I undertake with those reverts i.e. entering discussion on the talk page/taking sources to RS/N. There are actually many good additions to the artile I leave well alone. Betty Logan (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comment: It's not clear that this is a matter suited to WP:AN3. This is a long-running content dispute between two experienced editors. There is no RfC on the talk page about use (or non-use) of colors in the listing, and there is no RfC on the sourcing standards which ought to be required to determine if someone is a vegan. I perceive that both SV and Betty are attached to positions which don't have universal support. SV thinks that we should avoid "large numbers of templates, which make the page slow to load for readers and editors". Betty Logan seems to require ironclad sourcing standards for whether someone is a vegan. To SV, I would observe that some articles on Misplaced Pages have templates and they still survive. To Betty, I note that relatively light-weight (non defamatory) bits of information about people are sometimes taken from what appear to be their personal websites. Since it is not always easy to recruit outsiders to an RfC to settle that kind of a dispute, both parties should consider backing off a little from their positions to maintain harmony on the article. EdJohnston (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect Ed, there was a discussion about the format of the list and four editors agreed to implement it (see Talk:List_of_vegans/Archive_2#Change_of_formatting_to_match_List_of_vegetarians), and it was in the list for over a year with no complaints. SlimVirgin has disregarded that and removed all the styling. On the talk page three of those four editors including me were open to dropping the colors, but not in the way she did it; we all agreed there should be some other organizational structure, and one possibility discussed was a sortable table (mine and Muleattack's preference—see example formats here). Considering that we were all willing to consider possibilities that were open to dropping the color codes, then I think it was inappropriate for SlimVirgin to go ahead and remove them anyway without engaging in discussion and agreeing to a direction for the list. It was just exceedingly premature, and the discussion at Talk:List_of_vegans#Legends.2Ftemplates shows that no-one was happy with these color codes just being pulled in the way she did it. The sourcing issues are being resolved at RS/N btw, and I am prepared to stand by their judgment either way. Betty Logan (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• By the way, I have opened a DR case about this which I hope will resolve the issue, so this case is somewhat stale now, and can probably be closed. I have been very disappointed in her approach since we were willing to engineer a solution that would have accommodated her wishes, and all we needed was a bit of time and discussion to do that (heck I even knocked up a mock table without the color codes!). That said I request that now the DR case is open, that any further major structural alterations that are undertaken not in the context of the DR process will be dealt with severely, and I would like you to formalise that and add it to both our talk pages and the talk page of the article if that is possible, because I think it is imperative that any major alterations are carried out with a consensus. As for the sourcing dispute, then I am happy to tackle that source by source at the RS/N, and let a completely third opinion resolve that. Betty Logan (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Result: Closed with no action, but with suggestions to the two parties, both here and at User talk:Slim Virgin. At present there are reasonable discussions at Talk:List of vegans#Reverting and at Talk:List of vegans#Removing names. If either SV or Betty reverts before the Talk discussions reach a conclusion they will find themselves on tricky ground. Betty seems eager to pursue all possible forums (RSN, AN3, DRN), but before going to ANI I suggest she should ask an admin to review the talk page to see if a consensus exists for one view or the other. EdJohnston (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

User:David-golota reported by User:Oleola (Result: )

Page: Ekstraklasa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: David-golota (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: in Template:Pl icon

Comments:
Some background: Normally Ekstraklasa champion receives also Polish Football Championship title per rules. The only exception was 1951 season when PZPN reopened Polish Cup competition and under the existing rules the title of Polish Football Champion went to the Polish Cup champion, not to the Ekstraklasa(league) champion. This is explained in the reference(official Wisła Kraków website) , which User:David-golota constantly deletes. Many, mostly IP users don't know about it and think that if Ruch Chorzów was Polish Champions in 1951, it means that they won the Ekstraklasa. We have problem with such users also on Polish wikipedia, but never so persistent. I explained this to User:David-golota in Polish as he is Polish, send him there also a link to the article scan from "Piłkarz" newspaper from October 1951 titled "Cracow or Warsaw would be the seat of the league champion" to convince him that 1951 Ekstraklasa season was not played for nothing, but for a league championship. David-golota replied with](translated): "I only have one question: You're a fan of Wilsky Krakow.? Just tell the truth." - substantive response don't you think, and then made unexplained revert. Since then, he continuously changing this information despite the fact it's proper and referenced.--Oleola (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jogytmathew reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked 24 hours)

Page: Saint Thomas Christians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jogytmathew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Entire of the contributor's talk page - User_talk:Jogytmathew

Comments:
This is a newly registered contributor but they are not communicating, and in their latest edits they are not merely adding dubiously sourced information but also removing large chunks of sourced info without explanation. - Sitush (talk) 17:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

The situation on this article regarding the reported contributor is now becoming very silly. There is still no communication and they are mass removing cited content, much of which has been the subject of discussion. I have taken the rather dramatic step of restoring to an earlier version on the pretext of vandalism, which is not something that I usually do. They almost immediately reverted me. This might be a situation that takes more than the usual 24 hour block to resolve. - Sitush (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• LadyofShalott 23:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:24.179.138.53 reported by User:Grapple X (Result: )

Page: The Smoking Man (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.179.138.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A. Have not attempted to discuss on article talk as this is simply a WP:CHEESE situation, with false material being added (unsourced, obviously) repeatedly; stopping to discuss the merits of incorrect information is a step I'd rather not be forced to condescend to. GRAPPLE X 18:40, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

User:Youreallycan reported by User:JunoBeach (Result: Page protected)

Page: War criminals in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Initial placement of +tag: 22:49, 28 April 2012‎ first post — Preceding unsigned comment added by JunoBeach (talk • contribs)
• 1st revert: 09:04, 29 April 2012 diff 1
• 2nd revert: 10:17, 29 April 2012‎ diff 2
• 3rd revert: 18:59, 29 April 2012‎ diff 3
• 4th revert: 19:06, 29 April 2012‎ diff 4

Diffs by two different editors giving edit warning on article talk page: Diff 1 & Diff 2

Comments:

I was the editor that created the article. User:Youreallycan has been tracking/stalking me for a couple days now through my edit history. JunoBeach (talk) 19:32, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I should block the bloody 3 of you. A quick read of the "article" shows it's nothing but a single POV, and not even worthy of an encyclopedia article whatsoever. I was tempted to AFD it - but perhaps you guys can work out something that makes any degree of sense as an article on the talkpage. When protection expires, DO NOT remove the tag - period - or I will consider it a continuation of the same edit-war (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Xmike920 reported by User:Acroterion (Result: )

Page: Timeline for the day of the September 11 attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xmike920 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 22 April, fourth revert of that series, blocked April 23 for edit-warring
• 2nd revert: 27 April
• 3rd revert: 28 April
• 4th revert: 30 April

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: . My follow-up question, which went unanswered

Comments:

Resumption of a slow edit-war over times of 9/11 aircraft impacts. Xmike920 was blocked on 23 April for this, which has been going on, on and off, for a year. I've attempted to engage the editor, as has Tom harrison, with no response. Others have warned too. Resumption of changes without discussion doesn't seem to bode well: other editors have given their reasons for preferring the more recent NCSTAR source for 9/11 times: Xmike 920 just removes the sources and substitutes times from the earlier 9/11 report and ignores attempts at discussion. Much the same thing has been happening at American Airlines Flight 11 (an FA), and now we're seeing unexplained changes to casualty counts . Acroterion (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring