Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:35, 7 April 2013 (Robot: Archiving 9 threads from Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. (ARCHIVE FULL)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:MrsKrishan reported by User:DeCausa (Result: Blocked)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:14, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:62.150.13.66 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 hours for vandalism)

Page: Ezhavathy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 62.150.13.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

4. Reporting per EW, not 3RR - they are unlikely to talk about this issue

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Not on article talk because this is straight removal of sourced content. I did add a comment to the EW template on the IP's talk.

Comments:
Appears to be a static IP, so blocking may be preferable to WP:RFPP. - Sitush (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for vandalism. ItsZippy 16:39, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

User:GhiathArodaki reported by User:Renetus (Result: GhiathArodaki blocked 72 hours; User:Alhanuty blocked 24 hours)

Page: Flag of Syria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: GhiathArodaki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Flag_of_Syria#Naming_of_the_current_red-white-green_flag
Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on users talk page: User_talk:GhiathArodaki#Notice_of_Edit_warring_noticeboard_discussion

Comments:
Although GhiathArodaki's edit war has been going on for a lot longer then the stated "previous version reverted to" and this is the second time GhiathArodaki is being reported for it in one week (previous time by User:Alhanuty) he has now clearly violated the the three-revert rule. GhiathArodaki was warned and asked to stop multiple times. He continues to change the title of the first paragraph and remove the independence flag from the gallery. He argues that he "is telling the truth" and although being right or wrong plays no role in an edit war or the 3RR it is clear that GhiathArodaki is not trying to reach a compromise and he is not trying to reflect a neutral point of view. Although GhiathArodaki is probably not intentionally vandalizing the article, his edits and english languages skills are not contributing to the quality of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Renetus (talk • contribs) 16:13, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I didn't remove the mandate flag from gallery, And i'm writing the truth, that what i always say, I Returned what did you suggest to me , Yiu know Allhanuty is the one who should be reported , because he is biased to the oppostion and i'm the one who making natural view, I See , terrorist in Syria and Here.GhiathArodaki (talk) 16:27, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. I blocked GhiathArodaki for 72 hours for persistent edit-warring and non-neutral, disruptive editing. I also blocked User:Alhanuty for 24 hours because, although their editing was significantly less disruptive, they violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

why didn't i got notified about this before i got blocked Alhanuty (talk) 16:48, 24 March 2013 (UTC) CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHY DID THESE EDITERS DIDN'tGOT BLOCK FOR REVERTING, http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DIREKTOR_reported_by_User:Futuretrillionaire_.28Result:_Article_Protected.29 I NEED AN EXPLAINATION FOR THIS Bbb23,right now Alhanuty (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Iloverussia reported by User:GenQuest (Result: Blocked)

Page: Park Geun-hye (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Iloverussia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: March 21, 2013 version

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. old 1
2. old 2
3. old 3
4. and the disruption continues today...

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Warned here.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page request for discussion before further content removal and name change. See also this from the Talk Page.

Comments: User continues to remove a cited (by The Korea Times), reliable statements (re: religious beliefs) as well as changing her Korean-style name away from western convention in the infobox only. Page is also being disrupted regularly by IPs.

GenQuest 06:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I see a reasonable case for block, will support if WP:BLP problem is repeated. I am WP:INVOLVED. Shirt58 (talk) 09:00, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
• Note. The account has very few edits. They have not done anything since the edit warring warning, although their last edit is still in place, so it's hard to say whether they get it. There's been no breach of 3RR, although the BLP issues are troubling. I'm not taking any action at this point, although another admin may feel differently. (I see no IP issue; the article has been subject to pending changes since January 1.)--Bbb23 (talk) 12:28, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

i just prevented vandaliam. that source is false report. the article was misleading.--Iloverussia (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:188.223.226.180 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Blocked)

Page: Steam engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 188.223.226.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Steam engine is an obvious vital article for engineering. It has one article's space to give an overview of 300 years' history. Space and relevance is at a premium.

This issue is about the Quasiturbine, a recent invention. Should it have a section within the Steam engine article?

This has been discussed at length at Talk:Steam_engine#Rotary_Steam_Alternative_versus_BRASH. It was raised innocently two years ago by KVDP (talk · contribs), but rejected by a number of other editors on the grounds that there are any number of new inventions to any long-established field, but that a new invention has to demonstrate some worthwhile importance or adoption before it becomes worthy of a field's top-level article. This Quasiturbine has neither – although at WP it does have a rather spammy past.

This issue has re-appeared in the last couple of days:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (188.223.226.181 (talk · contribs))
2. (94.193.163.197 (talk · contribs), from the same obscure ISP)

These have been reverted by threefour independent editors, on much the same grounds as last time (see article talk:). There is no change to this – although the new IP has added a range of attacks on these editors. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Now here on my talk: too. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. I blocked both IPs, which are supposedly static and coming from same provider, for 72 hours. If more pop up, we'll have to consider semi-protection.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:38, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Harnad reported by User:Biruitorul (Result: Locked)

Page: Constitution of Hungary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Harnad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• Page protected. I've locked the article for 3 days because of the edit warring. I've reverted Harnad's changes because they are too close to the cited opinion piece and therefore violate copyright.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:70.83.160.23 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Aircraft engine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.83.160.23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yet another bunch of edit-warring in relation to Coandă-1910 (read the substantial talk page archives, should you care). This is an early experimental aircraft that may (but probably didn't) have had a jet engine and may (but probably didn't) make the first jet-powered flight in 1910.

Specifically, re the edit-warring here, it's about changing Aircraft engine away from a version that is supported by a fairly broad consensus. Be careful though, the details here are subtle and require some understanding of the technical details to judge them. Swapping minor terms like "jet engine" and "jet-propelled" is a highly contentious change in this scope, even if it looks trivial to the layman.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Rounded off with a series of increasingly ludicrous accusations that any editor who reverts is one of a multiple sockpuppet farm. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours ItsZippy 16:54, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Sonicyouth86 reported by User:memills (Result: Protected)

Page: Evolutionary Psychology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sonicyouth86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Sonicyouth86 added a new section to the article, which I edited for accuracy and clarity. These edits were then repeatedly reverted despite my efforts on the Talk page here to discuss the content issues related to the new material.

I added a reliably sourced new section to the article Evolutionary psychology yesterday. Memills (talk · contribs) rewrote parts of the sourced content so that the sources were misrepresented. I explained this in detail (using quotes from the relevant two sources) on the article talk page (see Talk:Evolutionary psychology#Section "Ethical implication") before partially reverting per WP:OR. It was patently obvious that the sources did not support Memills desired version but he continued to revert three times . --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 2 days. You're both at 3 reverts, but there is an edit war happening. I've protected the page for 2 days; please use that time to discuss the issue on the talk page. ItsZippy 17:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• • I count 2 reverts on my part. However, I will continue efforts on the Talk page. Memills (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:FRANKDK2 reported by User:Aunva6 (Result: Warned)

Page: PPL Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: FRANKDK2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:FRANKDK2

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

Comments:
On PPL Center: repeatedly violated 3rr rule, even after warnings. does not place edit summaries, and refuses to discuss reverts. repeatedly warned on his user talk page. -- Aunva6 17:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. I have warned the user that if they persist, they will be blocked. I almost blocked them now based on the first edit report, which was closed about 5 days ago by another admin, but in view of their editing history, it would take a fairly long block to do any good, and I didn't like the idea of imposing such a long block as a first block without a warning. As an aside, the editor has never breached WP:3RR, at least not this year (they edited the article in early 2012).--Bbb23 (talk) 19:41, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

thank you. I realized after I had posted that he hadn't violated 3rr, but I think this was completely fair. -- Aunva6 19:59, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:DIREKTOR reported by User:Futuretrillionaire (Result: Article Protected)

Page: Syrian civil war (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DIREKTOR (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:
Diff of User:DIREKTOR removing my warning to him. Sopher99 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user is adding controversial material despite the ongoing discussion at the talk page.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. The WP:CABAL of users that WP:OWNS that article has been abusing 3RR and gaming the system for months now to WP:STONEWALL sourced changes in accordance with listed references and relevant template guidelines - most likely out of political preference and POV. Reams of text have been written in an attempt to discuss this matter, including three RfCs and a WP:DRN thread - none garnered a response. The highly-biased status quo is being enforced through bullying and organized edit-warring by the said cabal, and apparently may remain in place indefinitely.

In my defense, others and myself discussed the matter ad nauseam, only to realize that no matter the state of the sources, the changes simply "cannot be allowed" to go through. The addition is entirely sourced and is in accordance with infobox template standards as described on its own page (and implemented throughout Misplaced Pages). -- Director (talk) 18:37, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

You cannot use stonewalling or ad nauseam as a defense because there is no "clear majority", good faith negotiations are ongoing, and there is no reaction to a "minor error" involved. Sopher99 (talk) 18:40, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

Wiikipedia is not a democracy, Sopher99 - its written based on sources. The motto of you folks - "consensus is required, citations don't matter", is not how we do things here. -- Director (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I meant. Baboon is using sources to support his edit-warring, which is absurd. No matter what sources you have, you need to discuss first.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I am not Futuretrillionaire. The citations you used only proves that the strike occurred, not that the conflict defines the neighboring countries as a belligerent. Sopher99 (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@Futuretrillionaire. Yeah, clearly you did not mean to put it so obviously. And, as I said, we discussed for weeks, well beyond the point of tedium. RfCs and DRNs were posted, which garnered no response. Even if I get blocked, as is quite likely, I'm glad to clearly show that the extreme bias of the article and its infobox is being maintained merely by a bullying WP:CABAL employing organized edit war.

@Sopher99. No, I suppose we should defer to your definitions of a "belligerent" or "participant" or whatnot? Quite plainly, the guide of the relevant template defines combatants for inclusion as "countries whose forces took part in the conflict". Many reliable, mainstream sources have been cited to the explicit effect that the country has entered the conflict. The rest is empty wordplay. -- Director (talk) 19:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

It also says "When there is a large number of participants, it may be better to list only the three or four major groups on each side of the conflict, and to describe the rest in the body of the article". There are no sources which define the Syrian civil war as being a conflict which involves Israel, particularly small border clashes. Sopher99 (talk) 19:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would just like to point out that Sopher and FutureTrillionaire are often opposed to each other in many of the discussions on the page. They are, in no way, colluding to push a specific point of view. Jeancey (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

@Sopher. Sure, it says a lot of things. None of which justify your arbitrary removal of sourced content. There are only several distinct combatants here. Desperately wikilawyering all over that template is pretty transparent.
@Jeancey. They most certainly are. I would just like to point out that you support their position on the talkpage.

Incidentally, here are the reverts of Baboon and myself by Sopher99 and Futuretrillionaire:

-- Director (talk) 20:07, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

But we didn't break the 3 revert rule. You did. In order for you to break the 3 revert rule, logically someone else has to have been reverting as well, just not to the same extent. In fact you went on to continue to revert despite this 3rv rule report. Sopher99 (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I would not consider myself supporting their position. In fact, I have yet to actually add anything that was strictly my opinion. All the stuff I have posted on the talk page came directly from articles you provided, with the exception of my interpretation of your replies to me. I personally think they should all be removed from the combatant section, and just the syrian army and the rebel factions be listed, and Iran, hezbollah, and all other nations be relegated to a supported by section. I don't think anyone else supports this, so I haven't said anything. Jeancey (talk) 20:10, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Already protected. Direktor has indeed broken 3RR here, but so has FutureTrillionaire (starting with the 21:26 edit yesterday) and Sopher99 has four reverts in 31 hours, so no-one's covering themselves in glory here. There should be plenty of time to discuss this on the talkpage now. Black Kite (talk) 20:15, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WHAT THE HELL WHY DID I GOT BLOCKED WHEN I WAS REVERTING Alhanuty (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2013 (UTC) That admin Bbb23 has blocked me for reverting,that is unfair Bbb23 shouldn't have blocked me .Alhanuty (talk) 02:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Altrico10 reported by User:Ducknish (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Red Tour (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altrico10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A

Comments:
User has consistently reverted in an attempt to maintain a setlist, ignoring the comment: "So don't change anything, or you'll be reverted. We aren't a fansite. We aren't here to list every little song change during the tour. That's what the note is for, to let readers know not every show may be in this order." Ducknish (talk) 20:23, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Kuru (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Gareth Griffith-Jones reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Locked and warned)

Page: Glengarry Glen Ross (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The editor being reported has a long history of reverting completely back to what he calls "preferred" or "accepted" versions of articles (this indicates an issue of article ownership, in my opinion). His reversion methods appear to be an abuse of a rollback feature, but I'm not sure about that. The edits he reverted several times (at the article referred to) before he reverted my edits were from an IP user. The IP user was removing a peacock term. He even made a notation on the talk page of the editor being reported about why peacocking should be removed from article page (see here: ) and referencing why he had removed the peacocking from the article page. The editor being reported responded by erroneously placing a vandalism warning on the IP user's talk page (seen here:). He then quickly removed the IP editor's comments on his own talk page. Nothing wrong with that since it's his page, but to me, it seemed like he was just blowing the IP editor off. The edits I then made to that article were reverted. No real reason why, no attempt to discuss on the talk page of the article, nothing. In my opinion, this type of behavior is becoming a theme with this editor. Someone else edits an article the editor being reported watchlists, I edit an article the editor being reported watchlists, and bam! It gets reverted almost immediately by Gareth Griffith-Jones (the editor being reported). Warnings of edit-warring seem to mean nothing to him: he simply removes them almost as quickly as they are placed. This has happened at several film articles I've edited over the last week or so: I edit, the editor being reported (or his friends User:TheOldJacobite and User:Ring Cinema) revert everything I edited in one sweeping revert. Evidence of Gareth's friends reverting for him can be found most recently here - note that as is their usual practice, no edit summary or reasoning is given, just complete reverting; no discussion on the article talk page, just complete reverting. Winkelvi (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. Warned. I've locked the article for 3 days. It was either that or hand out blocks to three of the four parties involved, Gareth, Winkelvi, and the IP. The only editor who didn't breach WP:3RR was The Old Jacobite, although the templated warning they left on the IP's talk page was unwarranted. Everyone should consider themselves warned that this is not the appropriate way to handle a content dispute (and a silly one at that). If the behavior recurs after expiration of the lock, editors may be blocked without notice.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

When the anon. editor's original unexplained edit was reverted, he should have gone to the talk page to explain his edits. Winkelvi clearly followed Gareth to the page in order to revert his edits, simply because Winkelvi has a problem with Gareth's edits in general --- Winkelvi, as he made clear above, believes Gareth, Ring Cinema, and I are in cahoots to revert his edits and basically dominate Misplaced Pages, which is beyond absurd. It was irresponsible of Winkelvi to encourage the IP to continue his edits rather than to discuss the matter on the talk page. All of this drama over one word --- a word I believe was justified --- but this could have been settled easily if the IP had explained his reasoning in the first place. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 00:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

As I stated on the article talk page just a moment ago, I don't want to hear Winkelvi's accusations or yours, or for that matter anyone else's. Give the IP a break. Many editors would remove the word "acclaimed" from a lead as a peacock term (I have no opinion whether it belongs or doesn't in this particlar instance). The IP even tried to explain that on Gareth's talk page, and instead of a response, the IP's post was simply removed. The article talk page would have been better, but assume some good faith in all this. If you believe that Winkelvi believes in some sort of conspiracy, then take it to WP:ANI or RFC/U, but this tiny debacle was avoidable and poorly handled.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:07, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Andreasmperu and User:97.85.168.22 aka (User:Alatari) reported by User:Shadowjams (Result: )

Page: Charlie Jade (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Andreasmperu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: 97.85.168.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Alatari (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ,

Comments:
I stopped at 3 reverts on my IP and named accounts and offered up a final compromise. I attempted to engage with the other user who refused to engage or discuss the article. I am operating in good faith. Alatari (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just started watching that show from 2004 on Hulu and visited the Misplaced Pages page to see if the show would have more than one season and if it ended in a cliffhanger to see if it was even worth while getting involved. I found the information in the article lacking and attempted to add something about the cancellation status in the first sentence. I don't sign in to Misplaced Pages while just viewing Hulu so it was done from the IP. It's a great show and a shame that it was cancelled. Alatari (talk) 00:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

After my last edit, I have requested a temporary full protection, since I had no intention of continuing any edit warring. I have also explained to the user my point and he understood it. Andreasm 00:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nikkimaria reported by User:Gothicfilm (Result: No action)

Page: Planet of the Apes (novel) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikkimaria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Note I didn't open the Talk page discussion because the external link Nikkimaria deleted without any discussion had been there since June 4, 2010, and being an administrator I assumed she already knew the 3RR rule. I'm here primarily because Nikkimaria has no business being an administrator - she took out the same link seven times - the first four in less than four hours, despite being reverted by two editors. You should look at the article's history page . I haven't had to deal with an WP:edit warring administrator before, so I'm not sure how best to handle it. She acts just like other confirmed edit warriors I've dealt with. She does what ever she wants repeatedly, apparently because she believes she is right, and has no inhibition against rolling in on a page she's never been on before and taking out material other editors have worked on and maintained for years. She comes back two days later and does exactly the same thing, only saying in her edit summary WP:ELNO, WP:ELBURDEN - the same thing she said before, after I've already pointed out to her they don't apply. That's what edit warriors do - the same thing repeatedly. This would be bad behavior from any editor. From an admin, it is appalling. It needs to be blocked.

Nikkimaria finally went to the Talk page after the seventh deletion. I said in my response there:

You are the one WP:edit warring as anyone looking at this article's history since March 22 can see. You deleted an external link that had been there since June 4, 2010 without any discussion. You then edit warred, deleting it again three more times in three hours despite being reverted by two editors, a clear violation of WP:3RR, as well as WP:Consensus and WP:DISENGAGE. As I said in my edit summary WP:External links allows for excellent resources like The Sacred Scrolls. The book cover images are obviously accurate and very useful to people interested in the Planet of the Apes novel's history. When I first saw The Sacred Scrolls page it answered questions I had about the book's different title Monkey Planet in the UK, for example. WP:ELNO says one should generally avoid a list of certain EL types. Even if this EL meets one of those types, "generally avoid" does not mean in every case, as I said in my edit summary. You had no business taking it out again after that instaed of going to this Talk page. WP:ELBURDEN says Every link provided must be justifiable in the opinion of the editors for an article. As I pointed out in my next edit summary I've been here many months - you for 4 hrs in which time you've done the same thing 4 times - WP:3RR violation. You then did the same thing again four more times two days later, repeating the same thing about WP:ELNO, WP:ELBURDEN which had already been answered. That's what edit warriors do - the same thing repeatedly. Only now after all that have you come to this Talk page, and you accuse us of edit warring. One who violates WP:3RR repeatedly as you have here is a confirmed edit warrior. - Gothicfilm (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• No action. Three points

• Firstly, 3RR hasn't actually been violated as far as I can see. Various people have three reverts in 24 hours (Nikkimaria on 22 and 25 March; Gothicfilm on 22 March) none have more.
• Secondly, an open wiki is almost never a reliable source. Sure, the information may be accurate; but if it is, there must be a reliable source that it comes from.
• Thirdly, a contributions history that consists almost entirely of reverts makes me immediately suspicious. Black Kite (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Just want to defend myself here. True my history is mostly reverts. But I still feel that I'm new here. I've only been here for a few months. There are a lot of guidelines and rules to learn and I don't want to violate any. There are also coding issues that I'm not very good at. SonOfThornhill (talk) 20:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I'm not suggesting you've broken any policy; but it would probably be a good idea to start making your own contributions; when all you are doing is reverting it does sometimes look like you are not being constructive, even if you are. Black Kite (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Black Kite is immediately suspicious? Of what? SonOfThornhill is helping protect certain pages he's interested in. How is that suspicious? Black Kite needs to explain how four edits in less than four hours over the same thing (and then another three edits in 14 hours two days later) is not violating 3RR when WP:3RR says it is, even if the violator believes they're right. The page had this link for nearly three years, and had been stable until three days ago when Nikkimaria rolled in. Am I to take it she had to do the same thing five times in a day to violate 3RR? That would be news to me. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:42, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can see on 22 March Nikkimaria removed that external link (that's not a revert - that's an edit). She then removed it three times (those are reverts). On 25 March she made four edits, but one (00:53) as far as I can see was not a revert. I can see how you are defining the removal of the link after nearly three years existing there as a "revert" (after all, someone put it there in the first place) but if you think about it that would mean any edit which ever removes material from an article would be a revert, which is clearly ludicrous. Any admin who responds at AN3 will tell you that to count as a revert, one is looking for a reversal of a fairly recent edit by another editor. Black Kite (talk) 04:06, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

WP:3RR says:

Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

You're saying none of that matters. Nikkimaria was clearly edit warring. I hope other edit warriors don't use your posting here to get four free bites at the apple. - Gothicfilm (talk) 04:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be useful here to remember that it takes two - or in this case three acting as two - to edit-war, and administrators are much less likely to block one side of an argument in situation like that, especially when the editor being reported is using the talkpage and at least justifying their edits per policy. Black Kite (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

The editor being reported did not use the Talk page until after having persistently done the same removal seven times. And I showed her interpretations of policy were disputed, so she should have taken it to the Talk page immediately. - Gothicfilm (talk) 05:48, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment The way I see it, removing something from an article is a revert, whether it has been in there 5 minutes or 5 years. If you make the same edit four times in a 24 hour period that should count as a violation, because if you don't count the first it means that one editor gets more "shots" than the other editor and that allows the system to be gamed. Betty Logan (talk) 05:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• I actually agree there - but that has always been the case. The problem is that when you have an edit that's clearly not a revert of a recent change, then you'd have to go back through the entire edit history of the article to see if it ever reverted anything - remember, even if an edit adds something, it could be replacing something that was removed years ago. That's simply not feasible. Black Kite (talk) 05:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Iwachiw2001 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: 48h)

Page: New York City mayoral election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Iwachiw2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 13:52, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
2. 14:14, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
3. 14:26, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
4. 14:27, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
5. 14:31, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
6. 14:34, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
7. 14:41, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
8. 14:42, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
9. 15:11, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ spelling grammar")
10. 15:48, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ more ref")
11. 15:50, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Candidates */")
12. 15:57, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ spelling")
13. 16:02, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
14. 16:22, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ more ref")
15. 16:24, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ alignment")
16. 16:46, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ alphabetic listing adjustment")
17. 16:47, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ alphabet move")
18. 17:48, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ ref added")
19. 17:53, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Nominee */ ref")
20. 17:58, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ restored partisan erased listing")
21. 18:00, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */ restored partisan removal of Walter Iwachiw candidacy")
22. 18:21, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */")
23. 18:38, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
24. 18:49, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ restored vandalism of tiller54")
25. 18:57, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */ restored link removed by partisan poltical censor")
26. 19:03, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ restored partisan erasure")
27. 19:05, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* External links */")
28. 19:16, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Declared */ please check the http://www.nyccfb.info and look uo walter n iwachiw as candidate for Mayor of NYC 2013..do not delete {{help me}}")

—– Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

both tiller54 and Moboshgu have engaged in erasure of the entry for my candidacy for NYC Mayor since 20 March 2013. The effect of the erasures is loss of contributions and confusion in the campaign, effectively censorship that is apparently partisan since no-one has bohered to check the nyc campaign finance board list of candidates. http://www.nyccfb.info/candidates/ look up walter n iwachiw, that should resolve the issue... I suggest thatsomeone in administation lock the page to edis and make sure that all the listed candidates for mayor are listed on wiki iwachiw2001

Then you shouldn't be editing about the mayoral election in the first place. —Jeremy v^_^v 19:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for a period of 48h. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:200.120.210.115 reported by User:Dawn Bard (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Trial of Nicolae and Elena Ceaușescu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 200.120.210.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on talk page:

Comments:

User is repeatedly deleting sourced content after being reverted by at least 3 people, says the sources are biased but refuses to engage in a discussion on how to improve the article. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell  20:53, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Nsc13 reported by – Muboshgu (talk) (Result: Blocked)

Page: United States presidential election, 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Nsc13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 20:19, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Democratic Party */")
2. 20:29, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Other potential candidates */")
3. 20:38, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 546963939 by Earlgrey T (talk)")
4. 20:55, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 546966451 by 70.192.197.105 (talk)")
5. 21:06, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 546968089 by Muboshgu (talk)")
6. 21:09, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 546969517 by Ducknish (talk)")

—– Muboshgu (talk) 21:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for vandalism. ItsZippy 22:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Omar-toons reported by Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Flag of Western Sahara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Omar-toons (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 05:56, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "rv unjustified revert")
2. 06:09, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "there's no introduction proper, the article begins with "Morocco controls..." that's a nonsense! + the flags on the intro date from the previous version, there are dubloons since now there's a section for each")
3. 06:31, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "per WP:NPOV, no one should be given more weight than the other")
4. 06:43, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Flag of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic */")
5. 19:55, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "rv non-sense")

Comments:

Omor's edit was reverted four times be three different editors. Omor insists on unilaterally reverting his revert instead of disusing his proposed change on the talk page, acide from one post that only deals with his change to the "Flag of Morocco" section. —Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Omar-toons: note that the "reverts" that User:Seb az86556/User:Emmette Hernandez Coleman are reporting are, actually, putting back a consensual version decided through a global RfC with which they disagree (basing on a 3 editors discussion that they pretend to represent a WP:CCC). Note also that no information was deleted, actually I only "reorganized" the article :

• added a leading section: "There is no official flag for the territory of Western Sahara since its sovereignty is disputed between Morocco and the Polisario Front."
• moved the image content of the intro to the body of the article ;
• added a short paragraph about the use of the Moroccan flag in the territory.

This was to replace the version User:Seb az86556/Emmette Hernandez Coleman are putting back, a misleading version with a leading section that is close to the nonsense.

For information, that issue was discussed through:

• a "40+ comments by 7 editors" discussion on WP:DRN
• a "30+ comments by 6 editors (incl. 4 uninvolved)" discussion on WP:NPOVN
• followed by a "90+ comments by 14 editors (incl. 10 uninvolved)" RfC discussion, result was : "There is consensus for proposal 3 (i.e., a page explaining and linking to the various flags used to represent the territory, similar to Flag of Korea)"

Following this first process, a decision was made to have an "elaborated disambiguation page" for each article related to Western Sahara, each one giving links to the topic related to both SADR and Morocco, as it can be seen on the 22 jan. 2012 version of Flag of Western Sahara.

So, maybe the one (or the three) who is (are) going against consensus is (are) not me. I let you decide.

--Omar-toons (talk) 20:31, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

That's true. There's never one wrong-way driver, there are always hundreds. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 20:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Or maybe there are 3 wrong-way drivers, but not 14, not?

This is simply a WP:DISRUPT issue by 3 users disagreeing with a community decision made through a "90+ comments by 14 editors (incl. 10 uninvolved)" RfC discussion--Omar-toons (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You've already reasied that at multple, locations (plus the ANI), and, tough you invited everyone from the original RFC to that first link a month ago, and nothing came of it. No one other then yourself wants the split reversed. Aslo, you're not restoring any previous version of the article, you're edit made a new version. It was reverted, that means you discuss. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 20:51, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 24 hours. The 06:31 and 06:43 edits count as a single revert (as there are no intervening edits by other editors), but there's still more than enough edit-warring here to justify a block. I'm not taking any position on whether a consensus has been developed elsewhere; regardless, this is clearly inappropriate edit-warring. MastCell  20:59, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I had to point out that Emmette Hernandez Coleman claim that a consensus had been reached on the article Flag of Western Sahara, wich is simply not true, as she had imposed her view in that article (for example, she had changed the name of the article from flag of the SADR to flag of WS, with the opposition of several users. She weakly defend herself by saying that no one oppose her move in the few days that the discussion was opened). Regards,--HCPUNXKID (talk) 17:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:dan56 reported by User:75.65.123.86 (Result: No action)

Page: Are You Experienced (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

I'm requesting admin assistance against User:dan56 He has not violated the 3RR but his edits to Are you experienced are considered disruptive and a violation of WP:NPOV. He claims allmusic is not a reliable source, yet it is listed as one here:http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources Another thing I would like to touch upon is this user is playing victim in an attempt to get other people to side with him. Even though he has violated the Stick to source policy and the NPOV policy.Keep in mind this user has been BLOCKED serveral times for edit warring or violating the 3RR ] So i think an extended block could benifit this user and teach him that edit warring will not be tolerated on wikipedia or Victim Playing to other user. --75.65.123.86 (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute. Please consider dispute resolution. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

User:HughD reported by --Demiurge1000 (talk) (Result: No action)

Page: Democratic Party of Cook County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 20:03, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 546956436 by 74.0.139.105 (talk) restore anon blanking of inline templates")
2. 20:05, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Decline of the machine */ weebly.com not rs")
3. 20:39, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "restore deleted article template")
4. 20:47, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Early history */ restore blanking of inline templates")
5. 20:50, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Under Richard J. Daley */ restore blanked inline templates")
6. 20:56, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Decline of the machine */ restore blanked inline templates")
7. 21:00, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Under Thomas G. Lyons */ restore blanked inline templates")

(for the sake of accuracy, the article history indicates HughD has reached either 4RR or 5RR in one hour, not 7RR as the above might indicate - two of the above reverts were consecutive with others)

• Diff of warning: here

Note the "warning" is a few minutes after the last of the reverts listed here, but the diff to the warning itself shows an immediately prior editor on HughD's talk page saying "Don't be so quick to revert. I'll get you whatever Reference you need. Work with me."; and HughD is by far an experienced enough editor to know the rules on edit warring. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:35, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

I've also now issued a warning regarding edit warring to the other (apparently relatively inexperienced) editor involved. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Will that show up on this page eventually? Hugh (talk) 04:31, 26 March 2013 (UTC) 3RR reported, below; thanks again. Hugh (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I understand 3RR. I agree this is 5rr (1&2 and 3&4 above are consecutive). I was working my way through an article, section by section, adding notes to myself and my fellow editors as inline templates. Upon completing a pass and reviewing the page I noticed my contributions had been blanked, w/o resolving the issues flagged or discussion. I started over section by section, that was a blunder, a few sections later on the same page, I violated 3rr. Sorry. Hugh (talk) 03:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

No defense, I know, but for what it's worth each of the above edits was an attempt to restore a blanking of my contributions. Hugh (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

"...immediately prior editor on HughD's talk page saying "Don't be so quick to revert. I'll get you whatever Reference you need. Work with me."" Again for the sake of accuracy, some context for this excerpt from my talk page: this was a 1 revert situation that did not advance to 2nd, so it is counter-example to a tendency to edit war; it was two weeks ago; posted by an editor distinct from the other editor in this edit war, and certainly not the an example of the other editor in this edit war reaching out. Hugh (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. There was an edit war between HughD and Homeaccount on 25 March. Since the reverts have not continued no admin action is necessary. Please use the talk page to get consensus for any further changes. HughD's use of large numbers of 'vague' tags seems unlikely to advance the discussion: it is hard to perceive your argument. Offer your position clearly on talk and use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution if necessary. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:69.181.253.230 reported by User:Transcendence (Result: No action)

Page: Roman Reefer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.181.253.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 23:35, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "fails notability criteria for songs")
2. 23:45, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "fails notability criteria for songs")
3. 23:49, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "what part of "fails notability criteria" are you not understanding?")
4. 23:58, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "fails notability criteria for songs")

• Diff of warning: here

Note: The last edit came 6 minutes after the warning.

Comments: This looks like a pretty lame edit war over what may or may not be a notable article. It also seems likely that whoever made these edits already has an account considering the level of Misplaced Pages knowledge this user seems to have.

Transcendence (talk) 00:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since there are no further reverts since 25 March. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:27, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:TheDirtyBubblezzz reported by User:Transcendence (Result: No action)

Page: Roman Reefer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 14:17, 23 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
2. 18:59, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
3. 23:32, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
4. 23:43, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
5. 23:48, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
6. 23:51, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "")
7. 23:52, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

—Transcendence (talk) 00:10, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since there are no further reverts since 25 March. Report again if this continues. EdJohnston (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Srnec reported by User:Daniel the Monk (Result: Warnings, protection)

Page: San Juan Bautista de Corias (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Srnec (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Result: Both parties are warned for edit warring. Article protected one week. EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Limefrost Spiral reported by User:Ropo153 (Result: Both warned)

Page: Feature phone (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Limefrost Spiral (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Limefrost Spiral insists on reverting to unsourced and biased information in the Feature phone article. He falsely claims that the Nokia Lumia series are feature phones and he continues to proclaim the the superiority of the iPhone whenever possible. He refuses to discuss his changes, he just reverts without explanation. Ropo153 (talk) 03:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Nobody broke 3RR, but both of you are on the way to doing so. If the reverts continue, both may be blocked. On a well-known topic like this it should be easy to get outside options, for instance via WP:3O. EdJohnston (talk) 13:49, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Homeaccount reported by User:HughD (Result: No action)

Page: Democratic Party of Cook County (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homeaccount (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 19:38, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "Requests concern usages that are drawn almost verbatim from the cited sources. Discussion should take place on talk page.")
2. 20:06, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "Tags are placed on cited material. Discuss on talk page.")
3. 20:49, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "Revert. If you are going to restore this tag, explain on the talk page what sections of the Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style this article needs to improve. Adding the tag by itself is not helpful")
4. 20:58, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "You are now edit warring and ignoring all citations and attempts to discuss this. I am reporting you as having violated the three-revert rule (3RR),")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 22:40, 25 March 2013

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

1. 17:36, 23 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Hijacking */ recent edits")
2. 18:27, 23 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Chicago machine (political machine)/Democratic Party of Cook County/Political history of Chicago */ inline citations?")
3. 18:47, 23 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Chicago machine (political machine)/Democratic Party of Cook County/Political history of Chicago */ add additional suggestion for going forward")
4. 19:05, 23 March 2013 (edit summary: "f/* Chicago machine (political machine)/Democratic Party of Cook County/Political history of Chicago */ redirect")
5. 00:17, 24 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Hijacking */ call for concensus")
6. 00:21, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Article as it currently stands */ discuss article")
7. 04:27, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Article as it currently stands */ attempt to engage in consensus building as per request")
8. 04:46, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Hijacking */ questions for fellow editor")
9. 17:59, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* Article as it currently stands */ suggestion in response to editor's call for concensus")
10. 20:36, 25 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* NPOV */ repeat suggestions")

Comments:

Please see Talk:Democratic_Party_of_Cook_County recent sections Hijacking, Article_as_it_currently_stands, and NPOV for numerous examples of unanswered questions and ignored suggestions before and during the time of the reverts, as WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:EXPERT issues frustrate normal consensus processes.

An examination of the article history will demonstrate that the "edit war" is not about consensus over content. It strangely revolves around {{vague}} and {{awk}} tags that were littered around the article on material that is cited almost verbatim from reliable references, seemingly in retaliation for providing those citations for points that were contested by the warring editor. What has developed is a clear pattern of Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing on the part of a single warring editor who does not want to see the article improved, but has suggested repeatedly that the article be blanked and redirected to a POV fork of his own creation. Request for constructive discussion with the warring editor, who has repeatedly demonstrated both WP:OWNERSHIP and WP:EXPERT issues with the article, have not been productive. I have never reverted a single edit requesting a citation nor have I ever reverted any additional content. I have repeatedly removed disruptive tags on properly cited material and the {{rewrite}} header tag - since the reason provided on the talk page did not involve the MoS, but rather simply stated that the warring editor did not like that the article even existed. It is STILL unclear to me what the warring editor objects to - beyond the fact that we have an article on this subject. -- Homeaccount (talk) 22:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I just noticed that although I have not made a single edit anywhere in article space since I received the edit war warning on my talk page which was cited here, the warring editor discussed above filed this complaint against me anyway. I think that fact alone demonstrates that I am acting in good faith. Just glancing at my edit summaries on the diffs provided above of my alleged "violations" makes this complaint almost laughable. -- Homeaccount (talk) 22:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The same dispute was reported above; see the closure there. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Sikh-history reported by User:TimesGerman (Result: )

Page: Ramdasia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sikh-History (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The user Sikh History is indulging in an edit war. He is removing reliable sources, not providing any sources himself and putting them as fact, and threatening with warnings if you ask for sources
—— Preceding unsigned comment added by TimesGerman (talk • contribs)

Pfft. No case to answer. I'm doing a major edit of that pathetic article.On a side note, this is a clear case of WP:LAWYER and wasting admins time with this report. This looks also like an attempt to use mechanism in Misplaced Pages to WP:GAME. SH 08:41, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

please note that this author does not have a WP:npov and has an agenda and is now leaving unprofessional messages on my talk page. TimesGerman (talk) 10:54, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:G0h4r reported by User:Debresser (Result: No action)

Page: Birthright Armenia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: G0h4r (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs (note: this post is about general edit warring, not about the 3RR rule):

Diffs of user talkpage attempts to discussion and/or warnings: ,,

Comment: From this user's contributions it is clear that (s)he edits only the Birthright Armenia article, with one notable exception.

I propose a block and a post on his/her talkpage to demand an explanation, with possibly a request to clarify if there are COI issues. The block is necessary, because this editor has ignored all posts on his/her talkpage so far. Debresser (talk) 20:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action, but the warrior seems to be right about the facts. G0h4r is warring to restore Edele Hovnanian as the founder of this organization, and you are repeatedly undoing that. Most of the sources, including the New York Times and the organization's own website, credit Edele Hovnanian as the founder, just as this contentious editor is insisting. The blog source which says that Linda Yepoyan is the founder is based on an interview with Linda Yepoyan. You should probably work this out on talk. I suppose that if G0h4r will not discuss they could eventually be blocked but you can probably see the irony of the situation. EdJohnston (talk) 16:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do. I had seen only the blog. I will not complain about an editor who is trying to add the truth. Debresser (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Hawkeye7 reported by User:Fluous (Result: No violation)

Page: James Bryant Conant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I made two edits total; Hawkeye7 reverted both. All but a word or two. Hawkeye7 labeled one revert as "restored agreed wording." There was no agreement; he said that to keep his revert count down. Looked at the revision history and found out that he made other reverts today, too. Like he owns the article. Fluous (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• This article was Today's Featured Article. As such, it is something of a special case. It naturally attracted more than the usual amount of traffic. As the editor who took the article to FAC, I was one of a number of editors actively watching the page. I was not involved with reverting vandalism, as this was handled by other editors in different time zones. I made only two reverts, to Fluous' changes and following the usual WP:BRD cycle. The second, fourteen hours later, was only a partial revert, of one paragraph. Discussion followed on the talk page edit. I was reluctant to (a) describe Conant as a "reformist", as this means something quite different to simply having an agenda for reform at Harvard; and (b) to describe people as being "fired" unless convinced that it has no connotation of being terminated for cause in American English. In sum
  • There were only two reverts (one partial), so there was no violation of 3RR by either editor
  • The matter was under discussion per WP:BRD on the talk page.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:05, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• • • That's slippery. You reverted more than two or three words. And you reverted another editor's changes, too. Then you made a third revert to my changes—the ones you missed the second time. 4 reverts. Sorry, but the rules are the rules. The fact is that you were revert-happy like you owned the article. You did take the article to FAC, and that was legitimately wonderful. But you don't own the article. Your first revert note: "leave it alone. original sounds MUCH better..." What the? Fluous (talk) 13:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
• Result: No violation. Consecutive edits count as one, which gives us at most two reverts by Hawkeye7 on 26 March. Also, featured articles are blessed by their own special loophole in the WP:EW policy, in the section on 3RR exemptions: "Considerable leeway is also given to editors reverting to maintain the quality of a featured article while it appears on the main page." EdJohnston (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:24.113.159.52 reported by User:Carptrash (Result: Warning for vandalism)

Page: Industrial Workers of the World (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 24.113.159.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Correcting blatant vandalism is not an edit war. If the IP address above is repeatedly vandalizing, here's the steps to fix the problem.

1. Remove the vandalism
2. Leave a note on their talk page asking them (politely) to stop
3. If they continue, report them to WP:AIV.

It's that simple. But you aren't edit warring, your merely trying to stop someone who is deliberately trying to make an article worse (note that it is ONLY vandalism if the person you are reverting is obviously and deliberately trying to make the article worse. If they believe themselves to be improving it, it CANNOT be vandalism, and this would be an edit war. But since the IP address above isn't trying to make it better, then you're free to try to stop them.) --Jayron32 03:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Warned the IP for vandalism, per the comments by Jayron32. Any further edits that are similar should earn a vandalism block. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Darkfrog24 reported by User:Amadscientist (Result: Protected)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Spelling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkfrog24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Beginning some time ago, a debate began about the use of the English verses American spelling variant on another talkpage where this user subsequently took it upon themselves to go to the MOS Spelling to change the section without gaining a consensus. Even after a number of reliable sources where added to the text to support the reversion to a state that was supported by references the editor refused to allow what they felt was the "truth". A long discussion began where I encountered a rather obtuse attitude and attempts to simply revert my referenced changes, even after finding stronger references then I had used in the actual discussion. The editor reverted my work and began an informal RFC then a formal and properly formatted RFC where they attempted to ask which version was preferred. After a good deal of time no consenus was reached and on the 24th I reverted the page back to the referenced version because there was no consensus for the preferred version of the editor. After this the editor began edit warring using a number of excuses including that the version before our additions was where it should have gone. Per our policy and guidelines, the revert should go back to the version the RFC was arguing against, but this did not seem to satisfy the editor who simply edit warred changes even against the reliable sources which included a peer reviewed academic paper by an expert in Theatre.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:53, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I removed my fourth revert just before receiving notice of this post. However, the text that is currently shown on WP: Spelling is wrong and should not remain there. My version of the text is less about "what I feel is the truth" and more about what I read in several dictionaries and the Columbia Guide to Standard American English. Amadscientist's source for the claim "there is no standard spelling of the word " is indeed an academic paper written by a theater expert. That would be fine if we were using it as a source for facts about theater, but we're not. The meanings of words and spelling are not that author's areas of expertise. The sources that I provided are dictionaries and books about the English language. These authors are experts regarding the meanings of words and spelling. Amadscientist is the one who said that because there was no consensus, the original material should be restored. I don't find that unreasonable, but wouldn't the original material be the text that was there before the two of us started changing it? No consensus doesn't mean consensus in favor of either party; it means no consensus. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC) Oh, and as far as "taking it upon myself to change the page without gaining consensus," I don't have to gain consensus before changing the page. Another editor had raised the issue of verifiability on the talk page some months ago. I reviewed the sources, agreed, and then removed the information in question. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:50, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for a period of 4 days Regardless of the state of the RfC, edit warring about it is not appropriate. I'd suggest you find an uninvolved admin to take a look at the RfC and judge the consensus there. ItsZippy 16:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I will also remind you both that edit warring up to 3RR is still edit warring, even if you don't technically break 3RR. If this edit war continues, blocks may be appropriate. ItsZippy 16:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Where does one find an uninvolved admin? Darkfrog24 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Try posting a neutral note at the administrator's noticeboard. ItsZippy 16:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Darkfrog24 (talk) 17:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

User:206.45.75.119 reported by Dawn Bard (talk) (Result:24hrs by Materialscientist via AIV )

Page: Brad Marchand (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 206.45.75.119 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 00:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

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

1. 16:45, 26 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547037228 by Yunshui (talk)2nd source")
2. 17:16, 26 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547090046 by Dawn Bard (talk) Typical bruin fan.. would you like me to make a compilation for you or something? Plenty more instances to be seen.")
3. 00:30, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547102269 by Dawn Bard (talk) no, you're a bruin fan in disguise. added third source. should be enough. and stop spamming my talk.")
4. 00:34, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547161815 by Dawn Bard (talk) You're not a bostonian if you simply work there for a few months. Same rule applies.")
5. 03:25, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547177752 by Hot Stop (talk)")
6. 03:54, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547184308 by Hot Stop (talk)")
7. 04:03, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547187560 by Hot Stop (talk) He is from Nova Scotia, not Boston. this is fact.")
8. 04:10, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "It is Hotspot who is edit warring. Read the edit. simply pointing out he's nova scotian is not warring. The burden is on hotspot to explain why we cannot include the fact he lives and is from nova scotia.")
9. 04:15, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547188978 by Hot Stop (talk) You violated the 3 revert policy, bruin fan. this isn't in violation of BLP. it's a well known tactic he employs on the ice, thus, notable.")
10. 04:18, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547189278 by Hot Stop (talk) You got dead last in an election to be an arbitrator for a reason, you know.")
11. 04:20, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547189452 by Hot Stop (talk)You're still violating 3 revert rule. if you have problems, go to talk.")
12. 04:33, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547190742 by Seb az86556 (talk) yes it does. see "too much diving from marchand" etc, from multiple sources. hence the well known part.")
13. 04:36, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547191648 by Seb az86556 (talk)")
14. 04:38, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547192164 by Seb az86556 (talk)sourced.")

—Dawn Bard (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Diff of warning: here

User is also at 3 reverts at Patrick Sharp . It's well worth taking a look at User:207.161.117.39, too, because the edit pattern is identical, and if it happens to be the same user, they are well over 3 reverts on Patrick Sharp, Brad Marchand, Daniel Sedin and Henrik Sedin. Both of the Sedin articles had to be semi-protected because of these edits; all four articles are BLPs. —Dawn Bard (talk) 00:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Editing to add that user is now at 3 reverts on my talk page, too:

1. 00:44, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "/* March 2013 message for you */ new section")
2. 00:46, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547163456 by Dawn Bard (talk) You're the vandal/ the one edit warring.. If you spam my page with warnings, I'll spam you with warnings. Don't dish it out if you can't take it.")
3. 00:50, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547163979 by Dawn Bard (talk)How do you like a taste of your own medicine? That's what you get for spamming others.")
4. 00:56, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Undid revision 547164283 by Dawn Bard (talk) Not threatening. it's a warning. as you did to me.")

—Dawn Bard (talk) 00:58, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I would like to report Dawn Bard for edit warring as well. What happened was I made a sourced edit to a page, and because they were a fan of the person in question, they edit warred with me and spammed my page with warnings. So I gave them warnings. And this person has been repeatedly reverting while continuing to spam. So as I told this person, if you can't talk it, then don't dish it out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.75.119 (talk) 00:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The assumption that I'm a "fan" of Marchand is incorrect, for what it's worth. (Go Sens go! #PeskySens) Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 01:18, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

By your reasoning, you should also be reporting yourself and hot stop, for you and him have both violated the three revert rule as well, simply because you're bruins fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.45.75.119 (talk) 04:23, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the reasoning is correct. All 3 of you have violated the 3 revert rule. Please read WP:EW for information on avoiding edit warring and what appropriate actions you should have taken. Higgyrun3 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not true. I've only reverted 3 times. It's poor form, perhaps, but its not a violation of 3RR. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours for edit warring against multiple editors. Materialscientist (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right. My bad. Thanks for pointing out my error. Higgyrun3 (talk) 04:46, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Not true, you were right Higgyrun3. Dawn bard is a liar, a fraud, and clearly a hypocrite, as she violated the three revert rule on his page.

1. 00:45, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 206.45.75.119 (talk): Removing specious edit-war warning from vandal. (TW)")
2. 00:48, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 206.45.75.119 (talk): to last revision by Dawn Bard. (TW)")
3. 00:51, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 206.45.75.119 (talk): Removing specious edit war warning with vaguely threatening edit summary. (TW)")
4. 01:07, 27 March 2013 (edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 206.45.75.119 (talk): Removing specious warning, please dont remove it again per Misplaced Pages:Don't restore removed comments. (TW)")

I don't know if you can count, boys and girls, but that's 4 right there on their page. And there's another revert of mine there, for a total of 5. and since 5 > 3, this person has edit warred, by violating the three revert rule. Also the only word in this person's dictionary is specious, how sad. I guess they subscribe to dictionary.com's word of the day. Anyway, Hot stop has 7 reverts on the Marchand page.. which is even worse and can be clearly seen so i'm not going to bother with it. BrainDeadBruins (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

First of all, BrainDeadBruins here is now blocked as a sock puppet of 206.45.75.119. Secondly, the page in question here is my talk page; per Misplaced Pages:Don't restore removed comments, I can remove comments from my talk page without consequences, and users "who repeatedly restore the same comment to another user's talk page may be blocked for violating the three-revert rule or harassing another user". So all BrainDeadBruins/206.45.75.119 has done here is point out another instance in which he/she was edit-warring. Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:21, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

No one's a sock puppet here bud, block was only for 24 hours and IP users that aren't blocked are free to create accounts. So another specious claim of yours. How do you like that? I've now used your word twice, correctly applied to you! Hahaha you make me laugh. Anywho, 3 revert rule still applies to talk pages so yea, you're wrong bud. Thanks for outing yourself though. 140.193.213.201 (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

User:75.65.123.86 reported by User:Purplebackpack89 (Result: page protected)

Page: Are You Experienced (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 75.65.123.86 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. diff
2. diff
3. diff
5. diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

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

Comments:
User is attempting to classify this band as a genre which they are not, using sources that are sketchy at best, and ignoring prior consensus and the reverts of numerous editors. User continues to edit-war despite ongoing talk discussion, and has removed all notices imploring to stop from his talk page pbp 20:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

This is wrong my last edit set of reverts were made 24 hours apart I have tried to reach a consensus with user:dan56 yet he is refusing to cooperate.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

just because you purposely waited 24 hours between reverts that does not mean you aren't edit warring. the three revert rule is a bright line to tell when someone is edit warring, you can edit war without ever breaking 3RR and you are. GB fan 20:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Right, but keep in mind it takes two or more to edit war. I have tried to talk to this user as the above links show. Yet he is being too stubborn trying to get other users to Edit War for him I mean come on look how many times he has been blocked for edit warring.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Dan is hardly the only person to revert you. Koafv did, another IP did, and, the very last time you posted, I did (the only time I've edited the page). This is pretty clearly more your doing than his pbp 20:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What you just wrote was an Ad hominem toward me. like i said in my below post dan:56 is edit warring by proxy having other users edit war for him can you not see that?? That is just as bad as sockpuppeting IMO. --75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I resent your accusation. pbp 20:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

What was the point in you reporting me?? The page for are you experienced is protected so i can't edit it anyways, So what was your point in making this??--75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:38, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Do you want me to list the reasons beside edit warring why dan:56 should be banned?? I'll do it if you want me too--75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected. The page protection seems to have alleviated the edit war. It may be wise to limited yourself to the talk page until you can control your reverting; clearly the addition is disputed. Kuru (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:dan56 reported by User:75.65.123.86 (Result: no violation)

Page: Are You Experienced (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: dan56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

I'm resubmitting the report I filled against dan:56 the other day because he refuses to cooperate and wants to give his own personal anylsis on what the album's genres should be. instead of trying to reach a dispute resolution is trying to get other Users to edit war for him , Once again keep in mind this user has been BLOCKED several times for edit warring or violating the 3RR. I have tried to reach a consensus but he wants to nitpick which source is reliable and which that isn't. Please block this user --75.65.123.86 (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Kuru (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify I wasn't trying to bring a 3RR case against him, I was reporting him for edit warring and trying to get other users to edit war for him.--75.65.123.86 (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Gruesome Foursome reported by User:The C of E (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Mid Ulster by-election, 2013 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Gruesome Foursome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)