Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:54, 10 September 2013

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:Sopher99 reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Stale)

Page: Template:Syrian civil war detailed map (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:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This is fowl. The template:Syrian civil war detailed map is a consistently changing template that involves usage of sources to alter the map. It is normal for it change on a daily basis, in which the changes are more often than not revisions of earlier works. Please take a cold hard look at the 500 edit history of the page to see for yourself. Sopher99 (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The purpose of a live map is that it constantly changes - and if news for a particular city is constantly being produced, the status of the city would be constantly changing, inevitably meaning reverts. Sopher99 (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Second of all diff 3 is not a revert. Sopher99 (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. If you think that not violating 3RR is tough, what will you if you're not permitted to violate 1RR? See Talk:Syrian civil war/General sanctions. As for diff 3, it looks like a revert, but I don't understand the import of the change, so I can't be sure.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:02, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The map is a template made to be updated regularly, not an article. This is the article https://en.wikipedia.org/Cities_and_towns_during_the_Syrian_civil_war#Maps_of_territorial_control . Sopher99 (talk) 01:08, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The sanctions don't apply only to articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:37, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Revert 3 is a revert because it continued removing the red dot on the same geographical location. That makes it 4 reverts in 24 hours. Pass a Method talk 10:41, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Stale. The last revert was by Pass a Method on September 7. Sopher99 has not restored their version.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Scoobydunk reported by User:WLRoss (Result: protected)

Page: Anthony Johnson (colonist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Scoobydunk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 11:22, September 7, 2013
2. 19:46, September 7, 2013
3. 04:25, September 8, 2013
4. 04:30, September 8, 2013
5. 04:34, September 8, 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

My Talk page
Anthony Johnson Talk page


My revert with the comment: (Reverted. Article is being rewritten with references so do not delete unreferenced material until the rewrite is completed in a day or so!)

Comments:

User:Scoobydunk is an SPA editor who supports the minority historical viewpoint on the subject, that John Punch was the first slave and not John Casor and therefor Johnson was not the first slave owner. He was initially very abusive in his posts but calmed down after I warned him for the second time. I informed him that I was rewriting the article and to wait a few days before editing as the article would be a little disjointed until I finished but he kept reverting. I also asked him to use the talk page instead of reverting and while he did start a new thread to put his case he still kept reverting. I then requested page semi protection which was rejected with the comment: "Protection of any sort isn't really appropriate against one editor. Discuss on the talk page, use other WP:DR methods, but if it carries on, then we can take action against the individual." For the main claim that Scoobydunk objects to, I added seven sources for it, books written by authors with history degrees, which he reverted several times. He eventually compromised on this point by watering the claim down based on a single source, text which was not supported by the other references and by adding the word "black" to "first slave owner" which incorrectly implies that he was not the first. I have tried to accommodate his views by including the minority view with due weight which I also intend expanding upon during the rewrite. The reverts to his preferred version are seriously disrupting the rewrite as he is reverting material within minutes of me making an edit. Wayne (talk) 21:34, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

{} Is the one actually guilty of the violations for which he is reporting me for and misrepresents the events as they happened. He's persistently reverted nearly all of my edits which had been carefully made to present the most historically accurate information. WLRoss even admits this in his report by saying "compromised on this point by watering the claim down", while none of WLRoss reverts and edits have included or recognized the facts I presented on the talk page and provided a number of sources for. His edits are in violation of WP:POV and WP:OR policies as his edits don't accommodate the vast number of historians that say John Punch is was the first man legally sentenced to slavery for life. You can verify in the talk section that I gave him 2-3 days to finish making his rewrite, and I did. It's also curious that WLRoss suddenly wants to rewrite the page when I present conflicting information when he's been active on this page since February. His request that I abstain editing the page appears to be an attempt to hold me off in hopes that I'll forget and lose interest. This is also reaffirmed by the fact that this is the second time he's trying to take administrative action against me, instead of coming to a resolution via the talk page. WLRoss has stopped contributing on the talk page and failed to respond to a number of information, sources, and arguments I listed on the talk page. It is clear that he's hoping I get block or barred since he can't validate his position and clearly wants to be the sole authority on the wiki article in contention. I ask that WLRoss be the one reported for he is the one who instigated the edit war by unilaterally deleting my initial posts and sources I listed supporting the information I added. It's disingenuous that he be the one to accuse me of edit warring, when he was the one who initiated it and continues it. You can confirm this by viewing my edit history and the content of my edits. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:01, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

A request for page semi protection is not administrative action. All it would do was give me a few days to finish a rewrite then you would be welcome to discuss the finished article. I am quite willing to work with you but the talk page, where another editor also explained the mainstream view to you, shows that a resolution is not going to be easy as you continued to edit war during the discussion and after the page was reverted to the original version. Wayne (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

By my count, the complainant, Wayne, has also violated 3RR.

His violations seem to be more egregious since he is a much more experienced editor (13,184 edits to 49) and has been blocked twice for edit warring in his wikipedia career. In fact,he even has a paragraph on his user page commenting on 3RR.Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I believed those last three reverts were consecutive as I did not realize that Scoobydunk was reverting me as I was making the edits. As soon as I noticed I disengaged completely despite the page now presenting a minority view of the subject. I will now try DRN to resolve this per the advice of Mark Arsten. Wayne (talk) 08:00, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you so much North Shoreman. I am new and I'm trying my best to become acclimated to the regulations, rules, and vernacular here on Misplaced Pages. I feel like WLRoss is trying to bully differentiating opinions and I'm relieved to hear that action has been taken against him before for this behavior. I was not aware of what constitutes edit warring, I simply mirrored WLRoss's behavior because I did recognize that he was a more experienced editor, and I even thought he had a higher rank in some sort of Misplaced Pages hierarchy, but I'm guessing now that's not true. Scoobydunk (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 01:52, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Yoonadue reported by User:Bladesmulti (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 07:21, 1 September 2013‎ Yoonadue
2. 11:46, 2 September 2013
3. 12:58, 6 September 2013

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This user has been edit warring in the page, shamelessly, if you read his contribution history, you would find out, that it's actually full of undoing the revisions. Because of his edit warring, pages such as Yoga have been protected indefinitely. He might won't be a active editor, but lacks to provide explanation for his controversial edits. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• No violation I only see a couple reverts, and the most recent was 48 hours ago. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:25, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:XXXVaporXXX reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: protected)

Page

Shelby Mustang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Ford does NOT own Honsel, Honsel has their own ALUM casting technology FORD does NOT OWN Undid revision 572018346 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
2. 06:14, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "YOUR VANDALISM HAS BEEN REPORTED. YOUR IP WILL BE BANNED Undid revision 572016805 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
3. Consecutive edits made from 05:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC) to 05:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 05:38, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "VANDALISM NEED ADMIN Undid revision 572014972 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
   2. 05:39, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "VANDAL NEED ADMIN. Honsel makes GT500 VERY IMPORTANT INFO. your feelings are NOT! Undid revision 572014690 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
4. Consecutive edits made from 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC) to 04:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 04:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572007543 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
   2. 04:20, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572006967 by 64.134.147.252 (talk)"
5. 02:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571852635 by Thomas McP (talk)"
6. 02:40, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571764218 by Thomas.W (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ford Shelby Mustang. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:64.134.147.252 reported by User:Thomas.W (Result: protected)

Page

Shelby Mustang (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 06:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572018589 by XXXVaporXXX (talk) Edit war. Honsel casting technology does not make Honsel the designer of the Ford Modular GT500 engine. Ford designed the engine."
2. 06:18, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572018092 by XXXVaporXXX (talk) Edit warring. The engine is a Ford Modular because Ford designed it. Honsel only cast it. This is incorrect."
3. Consecutive edits made from 05:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC) to 05:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 05:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013-2014 Shelby GT500 */ Edit warring. Ford designd this modular engine. Honsel only cast the block, they don't own the design. 11.6L is incorrect. sources improper"
   2. 05:56, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "/* 2013-2014 Shelby GT500 */ Edit warring. Ford designd this GT500 modular engine. Honsel only cast the block, they don't own the modular design."
4. Consecutive edits made from 05:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC) to 05:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 05:33, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572014395 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
   2. 05:36, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572014395 by XXXVaporXXX (talk) Edit waring, incorrect info. Removed incorrect info and citations. Sources do not directly and specifically support the added info"
5. 05:10, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572011418 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
6. Consecutive edits made from 03:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC) to 04:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
   1. 03:59, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572001038 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
   2. 04:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572000318 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
   3. 04:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571999922 by XXXVaporXXX (talk)"
   4. 04:07, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 571999728 by XXXVaporXXX (talk) The source link, House of Power.com does not indicate anywhere that their superchargers make engine displacement bigger."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 06:55, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Shelby Mustang. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Page protected Mark Arsten (talk) 16:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Barney the barney barney reported by User:The Banner (Result: No action )

Page

New Naturalist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 09:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC) "repair links"
2. 18:11, 7 September 2013 (UTC) "restore links"
3. 22:28, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "pls don't remove links, thx"
4. 22:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "what did I just tell you about removing links?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:42, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on New Naturalist. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Asked for an explanation on his talkpage but no reply came. His last reply on my talkpage here was a rather aggressive affair. The Banner talk 22:53, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Note. I confess that I don't get it. Barney wants links that go to a disambig page with a disambig tag next to them. You want the unlinked name but still with a disambig tag. Frankly, I don't get why either of you want either scenario. Maybe I just haven't seen it handled this way, and although I started to read WP:DAB, I didn't have the energy to continue, so I stopped. If it were I and there's no article for the person, I'd redlink it somehow or not link it at all, either way without a tag. Putting aside my own views, the disruption to the article is silly, but Barney hasn't breached WP:3RR. In fact he hasn't even reverted thrice in a 24-hour window, which is probably why he told you not to template him (btw, I didn't think his message was particularly aggressive). Why the two of you can't work this out is beyond me.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Agreed. Additionally, Barney the barney barney (talk · contribs) stopped reverting after being issued with a warning. As such I am closing this with  No action taken. If either party continue to edit war, I will issue blocks. That said, I would prefer to see the two of you just work it out on the talk page. Tiptoety 00:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Campoftheamericas reported by User:Noformation (Result: 24 hours )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:54, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Ethics and politics */"
2. 04:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "yes it is, did you read it?"
3. 04:52, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "/* Ethics and politics */"
4. 05:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572148359 by Noformation (talk) No, this section is about ethics and politics"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

diff

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Talk:Water_fluoridation#Sources_Buffet

Comments:

User is attempting to add an irrelevant citation that appears to be trying to push a WP:FRINGE POV. Basically, the sentence is dealing with anti-fluoride literature on the internet and is sourced to a reliable secondary source; the user is attempting to add a citation to the word "IQ" that does not deal with anti-fluoride literature. Nformation 05:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Note that I have asked the user to self revert, both on his talk page and at the article talk page but to no avail. Nformation 05:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours - Especially given this statement. Tiptoety 05:33, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that was ridiculous. I am restoring the status quo version and am happy to discuss changes once CotA's block expires, assuming he adopts a more collegial attitude. Nformation 05:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:71.51.183.13 reported by User:Zad68 (Result: Semi)

Page: Quackwatch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 71.51.183.13 (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 that in this last edit summary, IP editor appears to state intention to change IPs to keep at it: "look at arb decision 2009 ... stop the biased references and rah rahing for a site that is so controversial with sources that are made up ... and do you know what change dynamic IP address means", semiprotection may be warranted. Zad68 12:48, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. User has hinted that he plans to continue to edit war on this article using a dynamic IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Zad68 14:43, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

This user has already been abusing the system, so keep an eye open for more dirty socks:

• 71.3.101.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 2600:1006:B004:7119:948D:21D9:26EC:E28A (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 71.51.183.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See: Category:Suspected Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of 71.3.101.247

Brangifer (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Dailey78 reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Restriction)

Page

Black Egyptian Hypothesis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dailey78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 21:51, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Reframing the discussion. Diop was a scientist and a scholar. Not an Afrocentrist. He does not deserve this slur that he never embraced."
2. 22:54, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572116303 by Aua (talk)This has already been discussed at length. See previous versions of the article. Melanchroes is translated as black in most books on Ancient Egypt."
3. 23:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC) "It is not true that the discussion of Ancient Egypt as a black civilization started in the 20th century."
4. 15:18, 9 September 2013 (UTC) "Volney and Champollion the Younger discussed Ancient Egypt as a black civilization in the 18th century. There was already a controversy then."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Editor has been warned before for 3RR (eg ) and has given other editors 3RR notices. He should be well aware of this. Dougweller (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

My post on the talk page to refute the absolutely false opening statement of the article before my bold edit:

Although some editors would like to use the word Afrocentrism in the opening paragraph to distract the lay reader from the real issues, Afrocentrists did not start this debate. Europeans were arguing over the race of Ancient Egyptians before any scholars that view Africa from Africa's point of view weighed into the debate. This article's monstrous falsification of history keeps pretending that this debate started in the 20th century, when there is plenty of evidence from peer reviewed secondary sources that the debate actually started hundreds of years before that.

• Count Volney discussed the race of Egyptians and the sphinx in 1785, which led to responses by Champollion the Champollion brothers
• Rienzi discussed the race of the Egyptians soon after
• Champollion the Younger (died in 1832) discussed the race of the Egyptians in his letters to his brother Champollion Figeac
• A quote from Champollion in 1829, "The opinion that the ancient population of Egypt belonged to the Negro African race, is an error long accepted as truth."
• Marius Fontanes said "...these red men would probably be Ethiopians modified by time and climate, or perhaps negroes that have reached the halfway mark between blackness and whiteness...Lepsius' canon gives...the proportions of the perfect Egyptian body; it has short arms and is Negroid or Negritian...The Ancient Egyptians were Negroes, but Negroes to the last degree."
• As you can clearly see, there were proponents and opponents of the Black Egyptian theory much earlier than the 20th century. This idea that 20th century Afrocentrists started this debate is a lie and I will not allow this falsehood to be imposed on the public.Rod (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, there were numerous different types of edits about different topics within this period. View the entire article historyRod (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I warned you about 3RR in September last year. User:EdJohnston confirmed that warning. I warned you again in February (a warning I retracted), and you warned another user the same day. The reason for your edits is irrelevant, and you've had ample warning. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Dailey78, you qualify for an edit warring block, but you may be able to avoid sanctions if you will promise to wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians. EdJohnston (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Well, he already got his way with the article, so no need for him to do any more edits. This is really frustrating and he should self-revert should he want to avoid sanctions. All I'm asking him is to discuss before making a bold edit to the lead of an article on ArbCom probation.

Cheers, Λuα 18:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I suggest waiting a reasonable time to give Dailey78 a chance to respond here before a block decision is made. EdJohnston (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Here is the kicker for you: Rod, above, is daily78. He just signs with a different name for whatever reason.

Cheers, Λuα 18:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I support an edit warring block in this situation. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree to abide by the Wiki rules and I hope others will, as well. I actually opened the changes up for discussion on the Talk page at the same time that this 3RR notice was being created. None of the other editors have attempted to discuss my changes on the talk page before reverting my edits. Initially, I made many edits at once and they were reverted in full. Then I tried to edit a passage at a time and all of the separate edits were reverted. The other editors will not allow any changes to the article and aren't discussing their reasoning on the Talk page. We ALL have to follow the rules.

When I sign four tildes, you get "Rod." My username is "dailey78." It always has been and always will be the same account. What is your point with the "here's the kicker" comment?Rod (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Also, I count only two reverts and my other edits are various changes to the article. The changes are not all the same. The changes address different sentences. All of my changes were undone by Aua without any discussion on the Talk page during the same time period in question. Why is there no edit warring notice for Aua, as well?Rod (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Reset Indent - First point, you can change your signature by going to your preferences. You are not required to, but it saves all of us the confusion. Second, when you have articles under ArbCom probation, you must be careful. All your edits get reverted because a number of editors disagree with you. Once you are reverted, you should start discussing on the talkpage. It's BRD, not BRDRRR. Third, when you change a significant part of a probation article (in this case the lead), without much advanced warning, you're almost certainly going to be reverted. Fourth, "undone with discussion"..erm, what? How about this? or this? And that's in the past 24 hours (for which you're getting the block). Finally, I have been on Wiki for close to 7 years. My best advice: talk to us. We're happy to discuss things. Edit warring is not good for anyone. Cheers, Λuα 20:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And I reminded Aua about 3RR, but the difference is you went to 4, he didn't. Your other changes undid other editor's work. The fact that you haven't carefully read warnings you were given or that you gave to other people really isn't a good excuse. Dougweller (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I didn't have a problem with Ed giving Rod a chance to agree to certain conditions to avoid a block. That's a discretionary call and often works for the benefit of the editor and the project. However, Rod's vague, perfunctory response ("I agree to abide by the Wiki rules") followed by blaming others and defending an indefensible position is not a satisfactory response to Ed's statement.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• I intend to proceed with a block unless Dailey78 specifically agrees to "wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians", as stated in my proposal. The page also has an Arbcom banner on it and there is the option of a topic ban under Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Dbachmann#Article probation if we can't persuade Dailey78 to actively work for consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 21:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree to wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians.Rod (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

• Result: OK, closed with no block but with a voluntary restriction. Dailey78 will wait for consensus before making any more edits about Black Egyptians. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Homeostasis07 reported by User:Kww (Result: Blocked)

Page: Lady Gaga discography (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Homeostasis07 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 9 sep 2013 01:47‎

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10 sep 2013 00:56
2. 10 sep 2013 00:43‎
3. 10 sep 2013 00:29‎
4. 9 sep 2013 01:47‎

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Homeostasis07 has been edit warring against three different editors, apparently on the strange assumption that Nielsen, the worldwide standard in music sales statistics, is incompetent with regard to sales outside of the US.—Kww(talk) 01:07, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

And what is the problem? You just admitted yourself that neither Billboard nor Nielsen claim to count for Worldwide album sales. And, for the record, it's been two different users I've been disagreeing with in regards to Lady Gaga discography -- yourself, and someone with the username Gaga K$ Xtina. It's been the same argument for the past 8 months between random IP users (and Kww has been the contributor who has been archiving all the discussions about this subject). Anyone moderating over this debate should check the entire history before making any rash decisions. Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:14, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

The problem is very simple, Homeostasis07: you reverted four times in 24 hours in opposition to three other editors, and don't seem to understand that edit-warring is a problem.—Kww(talk) 01:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

TWO other editors - yourself and Gaga K$ (Kesha) Xtina. IndianBio simply removed another source I included a long, long time ago - a source I included merely as a tactic to calm down all the IP's that swarmed this page. I may have reverted four times in the past 24 hours - but that was merely because you butted your head in. And look where we are now. Convenient, eh? :S Homeostasis07 (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

One comment: the previous accusations that I have been "archiving all the discussions" is just bizarre. My last edit to the article was on Oct 19, 2011. My last edit to the talk page was on Oct 15, 2010.—Kww(talk) 02:08, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 11:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:Wiki hamze reported by User:Pass a Method (Result: Fully protected)

Page: Abrahamic religions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wiki hamze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 5 September 20:40
2. 6 September 12:38
3. 9 September 10:34
4. 9 September 10:51
5. 9 September 12:03
6. 9 September 13:18

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User was already advised by another admin, here another editor here and repeated this behavior today. Pass a Method talk 15:09, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am here to defend obvious accusations. FIRST I myself applied the changes not reverted back. it was also after a long discussion. it was also 2 times not 3 times revert. others were edit and adding some thing new. it is completely reasonable. If you refer to this talk under Abraham religions you will see there is no consensus about considering Bahai's faith beside other 3 big abrahamic religions. it is a obvious true fact. many guys presented their arguments there. absolutely there is no consensus about this in anywhere else. please respect the other people beliefs and observer what other people think. SECOND : you weren't active in related talk page yourself. please come there and present your arguments. THIRD : it seems that your behavior is going to violate 3-revert rule in side Abrahamic religion page. you can see in the talk page there is only on person agree with this idea and 5 person not.--Wiki hamze (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I am reporting this user for not participating in talk and not offering any argument or reason for reverting other users changes. there is also many arguments against this user in related talk page by many other users. this user doesn't respect other user's opinion.--Wiki hamze (talk) 16:16, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Page protected for 2 days. Wiki hamze has not technically broken 3RR (consecutive edits by the same user count as 2 revert for the purposes of 3RR), so I'm not inclined to block. However, a read through the discussion on the talk page suggests to me that his attitude need to move from one of fighting a battle to one of collegial editing. I suggest that users continue the discussion on the page, and advise Wiki hamze to adopt a more collaborative approach to the discussion. ItsZippy 16:50, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

User:ThinkEnemies reported by User:DD2K (Result: )

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=RealClearPolitics&oldid=572394899

1. 20:25, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572392612 by Goethean (talk)I'm so sorry but your world view cant fix the fact your data doesn't support your retarded ass interpretation of cited refs"
2. 20:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572394899 by DD2K (talk)consensus nononononononononono maybe you meant constupid"
3. 20:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 572395531 by DD2K (talk) I'm ready to accept how certain people blame human events for their nuttiness."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:36, 10 September 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on RealClearPolitics. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Not only is the editor clearly edit warring, his comments(both in edit summaries and on the Talk page) are personal attacks. . Plus 2 more. Dave Dial (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring