Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bbb23 (talk | contribs) at 23:59, 7 March 2013 (→User:Estlandia reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: ): re Marek). 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.

Click here to create a new report

User:Biala Gwiazda reported by User:ColonelHenry (Result: Protected, warnings)

Page: Rutgers-Newark (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Biala Gwiazda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Comparison between accurate information and present version resulting from reverting by User:Biala Gwiazda. All three reverts have been between these versions.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Rutgers-Newark&diff=542090071&oldid=541851680

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I attempted to resolve the dispute on his talk page. I have sought a third opinion, I have sought page protection. I started a conversation moments at Talk:Rutgers-Newark just before the most recent reverting action by the user.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
User:Biala Gwiazda renamed the article "Rutgers University, Newark" on 27 February 2013 (10:43 UTC) claiming it was more "clean" and "professional" and keeping with the University of California system. This was a baseless rationale for an incorrect move. I asked at WP:RM for it to be moved back on 3 March 2013 citing the mistake and WP:COMMONNAME. It was restored to its original name on 3 March 2013 at 09:16 UTC. At this time, on 3 March, I reorganized and revised the article.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• P.S. User:Biala Gwiazda has also begun to resort to slight ad hominem attacks claiming that I should "take some time" to address "mental problems" just because I have strenously objected to his persistence. I anticipate any further discussion will resort in increased baiting and belligerence from this user.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• Almost everything User:ColonelHenry stated has been taken way out of context and misrepresented in a way to make him look better and the other wrong. The renaming of the institution was incorrect and a mistake on my part and i clearly told him that after he posted on my talk page but instead he continued to spam my page with hateful and imprudent messages. That does not give ColonelHenry any right to constantly harass me and threaten me with comments like "you should not be contributing" and "I could care less what it was before" implying i dont know anything about the subject and acting like hes establishing some sort of authority over me and the article when really i was making positive and original edits to the page. ColonelHenry has been extremely negative and hasnt contributed anything to resolve this issue and only offered negative comments and remarks around me. This has been a personal attack on me and it appears like ColonelHenry is only targeting me because of my race. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 21:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• That last claim is utterly ridiculous. Comments before that are taken out of context. Claims of positive edits to the page is disingenuosly baseless because of his obstinacy in the face of correction. The growing maelstrom of belligerency, 3RR, disruptive editing, and uncivil ad-hominem attacks (accusing me of having a "mental problem" and being a "racist") is unacceptable.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• If anything there should be disclipinary action against User:ColonelHenry for his constant harassment and remarks even for his references to my country. Biala Gwiazda (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• The quote you called me a racist over was a basic statement of fact. I said only "User:Biala Gwiazda, an editor putatively residing in or from Poland, does not have any obvious connection to the university and his edits indicate a obvious lack of knowledge about it." This is innocuous. You, however, are too quick to resort to uncivil and inflammatory rhetoric. Quite frankly, an apology from you is a bare minimum.--ColonelHenry (talk) 02:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Just an FYI, Reverts 1 & 2 only count as one revert as they are consecutive, so this does not count as a 3rr violation. Still edit warring though. Monty₈₄₅ 23:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

• It's easy to tell that the two parties are angry with one another but it's hard to tell what the dispute is about. They have finally begun to post something on the article talk, but the discussion there is practically content-free. There is an exchange of personal attacks (or at least, accusations of personal attacks) but not a single reference, and no mention of what wording each side prefers for the article. A reference would be very welcome. The only concrete thing I can discern is that one side wants it mentioned that this college is in Essex County. Can User:Biala Gwiazda say why they are opposed to mentioning Essex County? EdJohnston (talk) 02:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected – Article fully protected one week and both parties warned for personal attacks. The editors should use the article talk page. They should explain which references support their preferred version and try to reach a consensus. There is still an open thread at ANI about personal attacks. ColonelHenry should not argue that Biala's Polish connection implies any lack of competence regarding this article. If Biala continues to sugest that ColonelHenry "is targeting me because of my race" (see his comment above) he will probably be sanctioned. The level of harsh rhetoric on both sides is alarming. If the attacks continue, blocks may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:69.156.51.130 reported by User:ApprenticeFan (Result: No action)

Page: The Amazing Race 22 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.156.51.130 (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:
Anonymous IP editor has added the purple Express Pass icon to a team won the second Express Pass used on the recently third leg given from the winners of the first leg received the pass on the current season of The Amazing Race. ApprenticeFan 02:11, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• I have advised the reporting user about WP:BOOMERANG and have given him an edit warring warning as well: —KuyaBriBri 13:37, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for this, I rarely forgot to write a new section on the article's talk page and it's currently empty. Nothing since the article's recreation back in January and until now. ApprenticeFan 15:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

NOTE: I withdraw this report and this is neither a vandalism or BLP violations. So, it's not a proper statement. Case closed. ApprenticeFan 07:36, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. Some revert warring has been going on and at least one IP-hopping editor may be involved. But since no reverts have occurred for 24 hours it does not seem that any admin action is needed. It is disappointing that nobody has used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Rossi101 reported by Pratanu.roy (talk) (Result: 1 week)

Page: 2013 Bangladesh violence after ICT verdict: (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rossi101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 08:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert: Pratanu.roy (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

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

Comments:
User:Rossi101 was blocked before for copyright violations . He/she is persistently changing the title and contents without any consensus of the editors. Pratanu.roy (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week for persistent edit warring that culminated in redirecting an article while it is being discussed at AfD. De728631 (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:78.145.92.13 reported by - MrX (Result: Semi-protected)

Page: Karl Pilkington (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 78.145.92.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 21:24, 4 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Film */ who ever is linking it to the "Chingari 2012" page stop it! That's a completely different movie you fucking retard! do some research before making shit up.")
2. 02:03, 5 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542109185 by John (talk)")
3. 02:51, 5 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542140876 Barek (talk) You moron do research he was a Caveman at the start of the movie, the scene with him in wasn't used but is on the DVD, Karl even makes reference to this in his book.")
4. 03:04, 5 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542143660 by Barek (talk) Reported for Vandalism. This is not an attack this is a correction with official references added as proof")
5. 07:25, 5 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542164031 by John (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:
This user was also warned about making personal attacks on other editors, evidenced in the above edit summaries.

Thank you - MrX 14:09, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

(comment) The user appears to be using a dynamic IP, and is now using 78.144.103.204 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). It may be more effective to use page semi-protection rather than IP blocks. I'm involved, so I won't be protecting the page myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Page semi-protection would probably do the trick. - MrX 01:03, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Semi-protected for one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:70.190.0.52 reported by User:MrOllie (Result: Users warned)

Page: Security token (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.190.0.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 16:33, 4 March 2013‎
• 2nd revert: 23:49, 4 March 2013‎
• 3rd revert: 14:45, 5 March 2013
• 4th revert: 15:46, 5 March 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This is an IP who has been adding promotional information about a product called 'Virtual Token MFA' from a company called 'Sestus' for about 14 months now. There is a parallel set of reverts on Multi-factor authentication as well. - MrOllie (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Response by MesaBoy77 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC). Mr. Ollie is engaging in a "promotion-by-censorship" campaign, removing pertinent information from Misplaced Pages pages in order to promote specific named products and companies. In this particular case, Mr. Ollie is attempting to remove a description of a type of multifactor authentication from this page (referred to as virtual token MFA) simply because it is a type of token authentication not offered by the three named token vendors Mr. Ollie wishes to promote on this page. This behavior is similar to a software token vendor removing the information related to hardware tokens from the Security token Misplaced Pages page in order to promote software tokens in the market. To try and accommodate Mr. Ollie's earlier edits and reversions, I specifically removed any reference to any vendor names related to virtual tokens, yet he continued to remove the information.

User:MrOllie reported by User:MesaBoy77 (Result: )

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

Mr. Ollie is engaged in a "promotion-by-censorship" campaign on Misplaced Pages. Mr. Ollie is repeatedly editing Misplaced Pages articles to remove pertinent page content, while specifically ignoring product content he wishes to promote.

By way of example, he has repeatedly attempted to edit several pages related to Security token (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and also Multifactor authentication (under the guise of objecting to alleged spammer content). The information he is attempting to remove, however, does not reference any specific company or product, but simply describes another form of token authentication (in this page, virtual token MFA). Mr. Ollie conspicuously does not remove specific company named products from the pages (i.e. RSA SecurID token, Safenet's eToken, and Vasco), suggesting he is engaging in a "promotion-by-censorship" campaign, deliberately removing information related to other forms of authentication in order to promote specific named products and companies on that page.

I am the original author of most of the named page content (see history going back to 2009). In an attempt to satisfy Mr. Ollie's earlier edits, I specifically removed all vendor names related to the virtual token form of multifactor authentication, leaving only technical information related to authentication method. Yet, Mr. Ollie continued to removed the entire section, effectually censoring pertinent MFA information from the MFA page in order to promote product content by RSA, Safenet, and Vasco.

Mr Ollie's user talk page contains numerous complaints by Misplaced Pages content submitters regarding similar "promotion-by-censorship" behavior.

In accordance with this page's guidelines, I have placed a notice on Mr. Ollie's user talk page. - MesaBoy77 (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I've moved this report under the one above because it's about the same incident. Will respond in a moment. ItsZippy 17:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Both MrOllie and 70.190.0.52 are at but not over 3RR on security token and multi-factor authentication. I hope that I do not have to block either user or protect either page. I think discussing this issue on the talk page of one of the articles would be helpful - it seems that it could be possible for a compromise to be reached. If this becomes difficult, there are various dispute resolution procedures that can be followed. If anyone refuses to take part in discussion and continues to edit the article disruptively, they will be treated as a disruptive editor, possibly resulting in a block. I also strongly warn all editors involved to cease all edit warring behaviour, whether or not a discussion takes place. Any further edit warring (even without technically breaching 3RR) will be met with a block. ItsZippy 17:49, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Tiller54 reported by User:50.201.54.129 (Result: 2 x 36 h)

Page: Colorado gubernatorial election, 2014 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tiller54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

User makes inaccurate claims of notability and consensus requirements to list official candidates for office

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 36 hours. I have suggested asking for a third opinion or RFC to both parties. De728631 (talk) 20:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89 reported by User:GabeMc (Result: Locked)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Vital articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Purplebackpack89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments: PBP refuses to allow any of the content at VA level 3 to change without prior authorization from him. He is edit-warring and showing ownership issues at the page. He reverted two hours of my work without any discussion about why. He keeps invoking WP:BRD, which would seem to apply only to article space. GabeMc 23:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

That's inaccurate, in that I started discussing before I reverted your BOLD edit pbp 23:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

FTR, you started the discussion at 22:25 and reverted me at 22:50, 10 minutes after I joined your discussion at 22:40. Then you reverted me again at 22:57, while discussion was still occurring. GabeMc 23:44, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

GabeMc (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User fails to follow BRD at Misplaced Pages:Vital articles, restored BOLD edit while discussion was still going on and no consensus was achieved for his position. Expresses ownership by making these bold edits to a stable revision with long-standing consensus. Also ignored numerous entreaties to follow BRD and/or discuss edits before making them. pbp 23:24, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to learn to let things evolve. Are you here to defend the long-standing consensus that beer and wine should be listed rather then simply alcoholic beverages (what about whiskey, rum, and vodka)? Isn't linear algebra and matrix redundant with algebra? Are there any geographic regions of Mesoamerica not already included in Latin America? Why have you now decided that you are the "enforcer" of previous consensus? Consensus can change, but you disagreeing with me is not proof of anything but your inability to collaborate with others. GabeMc 23:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with several of those, yes, and also the removal of Color. I don't disagree with. And making BOLD edits without any discussion, then crying foul when they are deleted, can hardly be construed as "collaboration". I've proposed changes to this page and to its Meta counterpart. Each time I discussed them before making changes pbp 00:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

You should re-read WP:BRD. Its, 1) bold, 2) revert, and 3) discuss, not 1) discuss, 2) after PBP agrees, bold, then 3) what would three be under your interpretation? GabeMc 01:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. The two of you have been here before, and no action was taken then. I've locked the article for a week. It was either that or block you both. Try to work things out. If you can't, go edit a real article (I still don't know what WP:VA is).--Bbb23 (talk) 01:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• A WP:VA is a rather arbitrary list that means very little to anyone. You get extra points at WP:TFA for noming VAs, that's about all the advantage that I known of, perhaps its a Wikicup issue as well. FWIW, more than 60% of my edits were made to article space (including 3 successful FACs in the last 6 months), but VA was a nice respite from the daily grind. However, PBP is slowly convincing me that I should take your above advice, go back to article space, and leave that meaningless list to control freaks and edit-warriors. GabeMc 01:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the explanation, but, for me at least, it only begs additional questions. Where is WP:VA mentioned on WP:VFA? And what exactly is WP:VFA - meaning, what kind of a page is it as pages normally fit into some predefined category like policy, guideline, essay, project page, etc., and are so identified at the top (perhaps I'm being too rigid, but I do like orderliness).--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Right, well, I didn't invent the VA concept (which dates back to 2007), so I can't really answer your questions. GabeMc 02:38, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• But you deserve credit for trying - appreciated.--Bbb23 (talk) 03:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Blocked 48 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to: 22:31, 5 March 2013

• 1st revert: 22:36, 5 March 2013
• 2nd revert: 22:44, 5 March 2013
• 3rd revert: 22:53, 5 March 2013
• 4th revert: 22:59, 5 March 2013
• 5th revert: 23:10, 5 March 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Also see: -- especially the unblock requests. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Here we go again. The edits above are each referenced additions during edit conflicts of new material for a recent death that needed updating to get posted. (I never once removed another editor's material.) And Macon has been trying to get me blocked for various reasons for months now, see his attempts to do this at Addshore's, and David Levy's talk pages, in addition to comments to Ryan Vesey, and on the Ref Desk talk board, etc., ad nauseam. (I'll search for diffs if asked.) The original block to which Macon refers was for my having given a star (*)to someone for a good reference at the reference desk, it was reverted. Editors will also note Hugo Chavez has been updated with five sentences and three refs per ref desk requirements diff and was posted diff, and except for Macon's desire to see me blocked for whatever reason at whatever cost, the issue is moot. I would ask that an admin ask Macon to stop stalking me regarding edits/articles he is not involved in for the sole purpose not of improving the project, but of getting me blocked. Thanks. μηδείς (talk) 01:12, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So your position is that adding the words "Under his socialist rule, inflation had soared, and the Venezuelan murder rate had quadrupled" to the article six times in a 39-minute period is somehow not edit warring? The edits on the other side of your war show no evidence of edit conflicts. In fact, those edits look exactly like a bunch of different editors deciding that material about socialist rule, inflation, and the murder rate had nothing to do with his death, and you re-inserting the claim every time someone new deleted it.

As for me trying to get you blocked, as has been explained to you several times. that is a distant second choice. My first choice would be for you to stop edit warring and stop editing other people's talk page comments. --Guy Macon (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. The block was partly based on the edit-warring and partly based on the edits themselves, which were inappropriate in any circumstances but particularly given the article's presence on the main page.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:52, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Cessna38671: reported by User:Rivertorch (Result: Blocked)

Page: Southaven High School (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cessna38671 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has resumed making the exact same edit on the exact same article that led to a block for edit warring less than two weeks ago. Rivertorch (talk) 06:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week. User has recently returned from a block and is continuing the exact behaviour that got them blocked before. ItsZippy 13:28, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:59.163.10.123 reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result: 36 h)

Page: Agrawal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 59.163.10.123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 14:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 08:13, 4 March 2013 (edit summary: "Restored old version which was more accurate and elaborate.")
2. 06:42, 5 March 2013 (edit summary: "Names and images of persons listed are indeed agarwals so why remove that")
3. 07:08, 5 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542169306 by Sitush (talk)")
4. 04:07, 6 March 2013 (edit summary: "Restored older version which is more accurate and elaborate")

Page: List of Agrawal people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

1. 08:54, 4 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 541598819 by Sitush (talk)")
2. 06:43, 5 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542022542 by Rocketrod1960 (talk)")
3. 07:10, 5 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542169166 by Sitush (talk)")
4. 04:09, 6 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 542211878 by Dawn Bard (talk)")

• Diff of warning: here

• Diff of warning: here

The content the user keeps adding is unsourced, poorly written and poses potential BLP problems. —Dawn Bard (talk) 14:05, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I did try to explain the problems here prior to issuing a high level EW warning. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 36 hours. De728631 (talk) 14:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Niemti reported by User:Jasca Ducato (Result: Warning to both editors)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: List of Assassin's Creed characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) | Talk:List of Assassin's Creed characters (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Niemti (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:

Comments:

Effectively, Niemti simply removed all text from the article and placed in on the talkpage, under to premise of a major "re-write". He then proceeded to simply remove character sections from the talk page and place it (effectively) verbatim back into the article, save and repeat. This was reverted by myself and a request to store any major rewrites on his desktop and only make the changes to the live article when completed; since then the user has continued to persist in his non-use of the preview button and, despite a friendly alert that such behaviour is frowned upon, has continued to do so.

As such, the entire history page is filling with "Niemti" and it is stopping users from make edits. This has also spread to the talk page where Niemti has "stored" the information he is adding back to the article to boost an edit count. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It's always funny when an edit warrior reports others for edit warring.

The article was being tagged for:

• in-universe since May 2011
• needing additional citations since December 2011 (having only 37 refs for 179 KB of content, and that's including fake citations)
• an excessive amount of intricate detail that may only interest a specific audience since January 2012

Now it's much better. --Niemti (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As of "boosting the edit count" (lol wut), it's 41,000 edits in 4,894 articles (including 454 files and several hundred brand new articles, categories and templates as well). "Jasca Ducato" has only 1,545 edits total, but apparently cares for these numbers for some reason. --Niemti (talk) 15:05, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't class myself as an edit warrior; I would class myself as an individual who finds the act of repeatedly failing to use the 'preview' button on an article annoying, at best. You have cited the above tags as your reason for rewriting the article, which I have no objections to, but your inability to rewrite the article somewhere besides the live article (as well as your insistence on adding the information to the talk page before simply moving it back) is, at best, objectionable. Simply put, I am of the opinion you have done this purely to boost your edit count (which, as far as I am aware, is against site policy) and your attitude that it "will be tolerated" is childish.

I also fail to see how comparing my total edit count to yours has any relevance to the fact that you continue to ignore the preview button. I would have thought that somebody with over 40,000 edits would know how to use it by now... --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't care what you would "class" yourself, you're an edit warrior for edit warring with me, which you continued to do even after being warned and told to discuss this on talk page, and actually even after filing this very complaint where you cried to the admins about how someone dared to edit war with you - while you yourself continued edit warring even now when the admins look at it (the pot and the kettle, or maybe you really think you're a special case and just don't get the irony of what you do). Oh, and "won't be tolerated" is not "a friendly warning", it's a silly threat. --Niemti (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: This link quite clearly shows that the majority of your 40,000 are the result of an inability to locate 'show preview', so please do not try and use your high edit count ni defense of your position. I shall not be discussing this further until a third party has joined to mediate. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Lol. You forget to notice the thousands of articles, categories and templates. Anyway, what you "shall" is to revert this latest edit-warring edit (not to matter pushing badly written unsourced content, trivia, and original research) to come clean before admins. --Niemti (talk) 15:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, and also now tries to scare me into allowing him to spam with an "excessive amount of intricate detail", unsourced trivia and original research again. Eccept it won't be allowed. --Niemti (talk) 15:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

For a simple reference, the Great Edit War of 2013 (not really) was between thrse 2 different ideas of what Misplaced Pages is:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Assassin%27s_Creed_characters&oldid=542593976 (my version in progress, despite all the continued disruption by "Jasca Ducato")
• http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=List_of_Assassin%27s_Creed_characters&oldid=542594637 (168 KB(!) of unsourced, badly/horribly written, unorganized, original-researched, extremely trival content mostly straight from The Assassin's Creed Wiki)

--Niemti (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC) In chronological order:

• "Jasca Ducato" files the complaint above (about the supposed edit warring involving only 2 people, that is me and..."Jasca Ducato")
• and then continues to edit war like if nothing happened:

And that's even despite being warned by me (which I did after he warned me), and still not getting it. Tl;dr: after the above was filed I refrained, but "Jasca Ducato" didn't.

Also, their edit warring was only disruptive (just reverting), while I've actively kept editing the content (which was making a rather horribly written and incredibly bloated article into something hopefully better).

Oh, and the old content was, of course, being stored on the talk page for a future reference for anyone willing to edit on the new version (which is a rather normal procedure for removing content from the article, maybe just not on all the Wikias where "Jasca Ducato" is so active). --Niemti (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Also, I'd like to show some similar articles that I previously either totally rewrote myself or helped to totally rewrite:

• List of Mortal Kombat characters
• List of Resident Evil characters
• List of Street Fighter characters
• List of Tekken characters

Which is basically what I'm aiming for with this list there (and the "main article" articles in these lists were in large part split by me). --Niemti (talk) 16:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note. This is an edit-warring noticeboard, not a bickering noticeboard, so stop airing your pettinesses here. Jasca, you are supposed to list diffs, not links. In any event, there's been no 3RR breach here. Niemti has reverted twice, counting the first wholesale removal of material. Jasca has also reverted twice. So, the two of you should work out your differences in content and approach, or both of you should stop editing the article.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
  • My apologies, if I submit another 3RR complaint in future I shall remember to post the diffs. I would submit however that, combined with the reversions on the talk page which effectively serve the same purpose, there has been well in excess of three reversions each. The main source of the edit confilct stems from the fact that Niemti refuses to utilise the 'preview' function provided by Misplaced Pages and then cites this (as reason for his high edit count) as evidence that he has more right to edit the articles in a way he sees fit than I, for example.

• Niemti: You continue to fail to grasp the point in this discussion; I applaud your efforts to help improve the article, but your method (which I have mentioned above numerous times) is in breach of policy. I would also like to point out that your additions to those various other "List" articles is besides the point, we are discussing this article, not those ones. Also, after filing my complaint, I haven't touched he articles at all, mucha s I requested you do not. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 16:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Jasca, you filed this report at 14:47 and reverted the article at 14:53. If we're going to use the talk page to aggregate reverts, then you both should be blocked. I've seen talk pages used before as a repository of material from the article, although I don't believe I've ever seen anything on such a grand scale as here. I haven't researched the issue, Jasca; can you cite a policy that prohibits Niemti using this "method"? Frankly, I don't like it, myself. I think they would be better off doing this in their own user space and then citing to it on the talk page for comments, but I'm not sure it's prohibited.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Odd, I did all three edits at once. My contributions lists reads:

15:53, 7 March 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+137,253)‎ . . List of Assassin's Creed characters ‎ (A 3RR warning has now been placed on your talk page. Until this is dealt with, please refrain from further editing this page.) (current)
15:52, 7 March 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-147,784)‎ . . Talk:List of Assassin's Creed characters ‎ (A 3RR warning has now been placed on your talk page. Until this is dealt with, please refrain from further editing this page.) (current)
15:51, 7 March 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,856)‎ . . User talk:Niemti ‎ (→‎Preview button) (current)

I've had a look around and it seems you are correct, it is not technically prohibited to not use the preview button, just highly recommended and something any user with more than a few hundred edits should be aware of. It is clear this discussion stems more around the fact Niemti and I have different views on what is acceptable behaviour when editing an article, although his increasing hostility in this discussion is worrisome. --Jasca Ducato (talk) 17:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe we're talking a bit at cross-purposes here, although I agree with your ultimate conclusion (putting aside the hostility comment). First, I'm talking about the filing of this report and the revert on the article page, not other edits. Second, I wasn't talking about the Show preview button, but about Niemti's method of removal from the article, insertion on the talk page, and piecemeal restoration to the article. The Show preview button is kind of unimportant, at least in my view.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Moehmoud101 reported by User:Bob K31416 (Result: indef blocked)

Page: Al-Ahliyya Amman University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Moehmoud101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The following is evidence of edit warring by Moehmoud101.

Moehmoud101's editing of Al-Ahliyya Amman University began 8:03 5 March 2013 with the deletion of two sourced sections of the article. All the material was restored by Uncle Milty.

Then Moehmoud101 deleted the two sections again at 8:15 5 March 2013. along with other material around the same time. All the material was restored by Wtmitchell.

Then Moehmoud101 deleted the two sections again along with other material at 22:18 5 March 2013. All the material was restored by Bob K31416 and a warning was left at Moehmud101's talk page.

Then Moehmoud101 deleted the two sections again along with other material at 22:39 5 March 2013. All the material was restored by Bob K31416 and a message was left at Moehmud101's talk page to discuss the matter. A message for Moehmoud101 was also left at the article talk page.

Then Moehmoud101 deleted the two sections again along with other material at 22:56 6 March 2013. As of now, the material hasn't been restored.

So far, Moehmoud101 has chosen not to discuss the matter after requests to do so at the editor's talk page and at the article talk page. As seen above, the editor's only response was to revert again. Although it is clear that the editor is edit warring, the editor may have avoided violation of 3RR in a 24 hour period, depending on whether the first deletion of material is considered a revert, i.e. an undoing of another editor's work. In any case, I think there is sufficient evidence of disruptive edit warring behavior to warrant blocking per WP:3RR which states, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring". Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Indefinitely blocked: this SPA has no interest in improving the project. Drmies (talk) 20:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Baboon43 (Result: Final warning to all editors)

Page: Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sopher99 (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: sopher also has another revert even before edit-warring

This is a tic-tak report. Several editors are engaging in "edit warring" on whether or not a tag should be placed.

I should further make note that I was warned after the fourth edit was made. To which as you can plainly see on the page timeline, I ceased and desisted editing the page as instructed. Sopher99 (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• As a third party (I am not involved in the dispute) it would seem that there were several editors involved (not just Sopher) and that there is currently a discussion taking place about whether the article truly needs a POV template on it. In such cases, I believe the protocol is to revert the article to the state it was in prior to the dispute taking place (ie, no POV template on the page) until the discussion is completed. In these cases, I "THINK" the 3RR does not apply because the editors in question are just trying to follow wikipedia protocol. Jeancey (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

yes several editors are involved but the only one to break 3rr is obviously sopher99..the 4th revert was partial but indeed still a revert & ontop of that there's a 5th revert in the same article ..i have discussed the POV issues here ..so this isnt about a pov template consensus issue. Baboon43 (talk) 18:45, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

My last edit was at 17:05. I stopped editing. You warned me at 17:59. I continued to not edit despite ongoing conflict. Then you "report" me at 18:24. Mind guiding me through that logic? Sopher99 (talk) 18:49, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

those are the new protocols when making reports here..it said to warn user if i had not done so, i guess its for future references. Baboon43 (talk) 18:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Basically I did technically break the 3RR by removing questionable templates, as I wasn't certain if the placement of templates count as edit warring content of a page. But when I was warned that I was engaging in edit conflict, I stopped. Sopher99 (talk) 18:58, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

I've left a final warning to all editors on the talk page of the article, which seems to have resolved this for now. ItsZippy 20:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Estlandia reported by User:Volunteer Marek (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: this one or this one, hard to say due to edit conflicts.

Today:

• 1st revert: (followed up by another revert)
• 2nd revert: (WP:BLP "recently deceased" violation)
• 3rd revert: (personal attack in edit summary. I don't even like this Kaczynski)
• 4th revert: (personal attack and bad faith in edit summary)

March 5th:

• 1st revert: (WP:BATTLEGROUND edit summary)
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:

Estlandia began edit warring on the article on March 5th. I raised the issue on talk . Estlandia has not responded. I've also alerted him to the fact that he was pushing against the 3RR bright line rule (Miacek is user Estlandia ) and requested that he discuss the issue on talk. Estlandia did not respond, though he did stop edit warring, after 3RR/24hrs. For one day. He resumed today, two days later, as the diffs above show. Note that I did revert him twice today, the second revert actually occurring accidentally due to an edit conflict.

Miacek/Estlandia has been here since 2008. They have received several blocks for edit warring and 3RR violations previously. They know this was a "no no". They have not participated at all in the talk page discussion. They have used inflammatory and battleground producing edit summaries including personal attacks in them (though if it wasn't for the 3RR vio I wouldn't care).

Volunteer Marek 19:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

First, I have not received 'several' blocks for edit warring, but just two. Last time in 2010 (unlike VM, who was blocked as recently as on 19 July 2012). Second, I reverted the same content just 2 times today. E.g. the last diff he brought up reflects a separate revert of incomprehensible content. Whilst reverting same content twice may not be ok, it's exactly the same thing that VM himself did

today:

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert - note the removal of adequately sourced notion 'Polish nationalist'.

On March 5:

• 1st revert
• 2nd revert

Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:01, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

It is simply untrue that I was blocked for edit warring on July 19, 2012, as Miacek is trying to imply (it was for mouthing off to an admin who blocked someone else, in my opinion, unfairly. And yes, Miacek violated 3RR today, and skirted the line on March 5.Volunteer Marek 20:06, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

3 RR rule covers 3+ reverts of same content, which was not the case here. You reverted same contents just as many times as me.Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

No it doesn't and no I didn't. The rule says: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert.". You know this well since you've been up here a few times before.Volunteer Marek 20:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

As I've not been a frequent guest here I did not know that definition above. I thought in good faith that reverting the same contents is not allowed. So I've undone my last revert of that page. --Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (woof!) 20:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Your subsequent edit, which you did not self-revert, would also be a revert.Volunteer Marek 20:50, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Marek, wasn't the edit at 20:25 a self-revert? Are we okay now?--Bbb23 (talk) 23:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Vcohen reported by User:24.193.156.117 (Result: One lock, two warnings)

Page: R62A (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: R62 (New York City Subway car) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vcohen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=R62_(New_York_City_Subway_car)&oldid=541897653
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=R62_(New_York_City_Subway_car)&oldid=542012311
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=R62_(New_York_City_Subway_car)&oldid=542160022

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

!-- You've tried to resolve this edit war on the article talk page, haven't you? So put a link to the discussion here. If all you've done is reverted-without-talk, you may find yourself facing a block too --> Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:R62_(New_York_City_Subway_car)

24.193.156.117 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Note. R62 (New York City Subway car) locked by User:EdJohnston. There hasn't been any disruption at R62A (New York City Subway car) for about 24 hours, so I'm not taking any action. Both Vcohen and the IP have been edit-warring on both articles. I will warn them.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring