Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:39, 2 December 2015

• 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:Biwom reported by User:D'SuperHero (Result: Three-revert rule not applicable)

Page

Aamir Khan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 10:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC) to 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 10:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "reverting 8 last edits - I disagree with these changes, mixing "acting" and "directing" does not seem a good idea if it leads to repetitions"
   2. 10:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* On intolerance */ replicating Anupam karn's latest edit"
   3. 10:15, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* In the media */ reverting: seems better to me"
   4. 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Blockbuster films */ reverting: not an improvement imo"
   5. 10:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Blockbuster films */ reverting: what does this mean?"
   6. 10:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Awards and honours */ you cannot call the Padma Shri and the Padma Bhushan "honorary accolades" and you cannot put the doctorate stuff in the same sentence because it's just not the same level"
2. 08:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* On intolerance */ fixes"
3. Consecutive edits made from 07:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) to 07:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 07:51, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* On intolerance */ "noted" does not mean much"
   2. 07:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* On intolerance */ I am not sure the lawsuit is worth mentioning"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC) "G.A"

Comments:

Editing out the references prior article is nominated for Good Article. D'SuperHero (talk) 10:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello. I was hardly edit warring. D'SuperHero made many many changes during the last 48 hours, I was just reverting small pieces that I objected to, one by one in order to put proper edit summaries. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe WP:Sockpuppet investigations/TekkenJinKazama should be brought to the reviewer's attention, so that he/she does not lose as much time on WP:AGF as I have. Silly me. Thanks, Biwom (talk) 13:57, 28 November 2015 (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. Swarm ♠ 05:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Paolowalter reported by User:90.44.195.188 (Result: Blocked 72 hours)

Page: Module:Syrian Civil War detailed map (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Paolowalter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Breaking 1RR:

• Edit 1 Revert 1 20:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Edit 2 Revert 2 09:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War#Conflict between rebels and YPG/SDF in nothern Aleppo countryside

Comments:
The article on which the edit warring occurred is subject to Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. And the user being reported had been placed on notice of the remedies in place. There was a discussion of the issue on the module's talk page (as i linked above) and the reported user knew that if he reverted, he would break 1RR, since he wrote in this discussion: "Please revert them, I cannot without breaking 1RR". However, 12 hours later, he decided to go ahead and edit war by reverting and breaking 1RR. This user has been blocked 4 times already for edit warring on this same module, but he doesn't seem to care as this looks like an WP:SPA whos only objective is to do POV pushing and bias the map. 90.44.195.188 (talk) 10:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Swarm ♠ 05:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Mai-Sachme reported by User:151.20.0.103 (Result: Semiprotected two articles)

User:Mai-Sachme broke the three reverts rule (1st 2nd 3rd 4th). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.103 (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The IP editor is correct in linking directly to the article rather than via a redirect but both sides are edit warring here. Page protection seems a better option I would suggest, making sure to protect the WP:WRONG version. WCM_email 11:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by saying "protect the wrong version"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.103 (talk) 12:02, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Meanwhile, User:Mai-Sachme has reverted one more time, that is 5 times in less than 24 hours.

For a better understanding of the case, I'd like to point out this notice and that discussion on an admin's talk page.

For a better understanding of the case, you should have specified that I've already answerer all of your points, but since you didn't I'll have to do it again here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

We are dealing here with a user, who appears under various IPs (5 or 6, I've lost the count...) and doesn't do anything (!) else than changing the order of German/Italian names, exchanging German town names with Italian ones and so on (despite the fact that both of them are official). That is clearly disruptive editing.

My IP always starts with 151.20.0-1-2-3. It's called "dynamic IP". And, again, the first IP you met, 5.101.99.101, was_NOT_me. HE made such changes, not me. There's one only edit I've ever done regarding South Tyrol with the other IP I used, 46.252.205.187, and you know. Anyway, changing a German name which has to be kept in German to Italian is disruptive, but changing a German name which has to be kept in Italian to Italian is constructive. If it wasn't so, then everybody would be free to change every single Bolzano name to Bozen in all the articles where it's written.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

• On principle, WP:NOTBROKEN should be a user's guideline. The user behind the IPs isn't interested at all in the articles' subjects, not one single edit was a clear improvement of an article. How on earth is that an improvement? Sorry, but that kind of behaviour falls perfectly into the pattern of an nationalistic edit warrior...

Aren't you talking again about the first IP, which wasn't me, are you? You're talking about that single Meran(o) problem, aren't you? How on Earth is your revert an improvement? Face it: the name is Merano, period. If you disagree, you should go to Talk:Merano and create a new discussion, proposing to change the name from Merano to Meran. Otherwise, you're wrong. And a nationalist... Pardon, if you were "nationalist" you would change all German names to Italian, since your nation is Italy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

• Here the IP even falsified a book title, just in order to exchange a German town name with an Italian town name.

Oh my God... Again? This is the 3rd time I repeat! a) It_was_NOT_me. b) I know your edit is correct, I'll repeat, your_edit_is_correct, that's why I didn't revert it, never ever. c) I'm not going to revert correct edits, just wrong ones such as your changing from Merano to Meran. d) Let's hope you won't make me repeat it one more time... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

• Here his edit (wrong name corrected, sic!) introduced a clear anachronism. I explained that on Talk:Silvius Magnago, obviusly whithout a response of the other involved user.

An anachronism? So, if you're right, considering that Italy was born in 1861 and Italian was made the official language in that year, every time an Italian town name appears in an article we must use the name it had in that particular moment (in Latin, in ancient Italian, in the local dialect, in the foreign conquerors' language, etc...). Please... And you're not even honest: you refused also the sentence "...Merano, which was then...named Meran...". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but the only thing I see here is massive trolling by a user, who even threatened me with "uno stolching perenne, a tempo indeterminato, da parte mia su di te.", that means "an eternal stalking, for an indefinite period of time, from me at your expense". I'd be thankful for a semi-protection of the concerned pages. --Mai-Sachme (talk) 13:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what it means, I've told you twice already. It doesn't mean that I'll undo you edits every time you do them. It means that I'll take an eye on you to avoid that you change again to German Italian names which according to consensus have to be Italian in this encyclopedia. I won't do anything different than an administrator who keeps an eye on a known troll. In this case, you're the troll. My edits are correct, maybe not fundamental but correct. And you're the only one behaving nationalistically here, since there's a consensus about Merano which you keep ignoring, pursuing your crusade against the Italic invaders... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

This IP's recent IPs:

• 5.101.99.101 (talk · contribs)
• 5.170.14.19 (talk · contribs)
• 62.19.51.53 (talk · contribs)
• 62.19.51.66 (talk · contribs)
• 46.252.205.187 (talk · contribs)
• 151.20.0.70 (talk · contribs)
• 151.20.1.181 (talk · contribs)
• 151.20.2.6 (talk · contribs)
• 151.20.0.103 (talk · contribs)

It does seem to me the IP editor is changing the articles to his/her favoured national version, against the status quo without any argument carrying weight. I take the view that the IP should do something more constructive, and would support semi-protection for the two most affected articles to give the IP editor the opportunity to argue their case if they wish to pursue these changes. -- zzuuzz 13:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I've already answered in your talk page, zzuuzz, why are you ignoring that?

the IP editor is changing the articles to his/her favoured national version false: it's not "my favourite national version", it's English Wiki consensus version, or else Bozen and Meran wouldn't be redirects, I've never changed and will never change, for example, Waidbruck to Ponte Gardena.

against the status quo without any argument carrying weight false: the status quo is to use the Italian names for Bolzano and Merano, it's Mai-Sachme who's going against status quo and consensus, if you disagree you're free to propose to change them in the related talk pages, if you succeed in that I won't change Bozen/Meran to Bolzano/Merano any more.

the IP should do something more constructive it's your opinion, and I agree: in fact I'm also doing other constructive edits which have nothing to do with South Tyrol, as I've always done, but now I'm also controlling his edits, not to vandalise anything but to prevent him from keeping changing geographical names from consensus version to "deutsch" version.

I'm neither a vandal nor a nationalist, if you consider objectively what happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.0.48 (talk • contribs)

Yes, I am not blocking you for being a nationalist edit warrior, or a vandal. I am not even going to protect the pages. But I would like to strongly discourage you from thinking about "stolching perenne". I find this fiddling from the status quo - the existing text - rather pointless. I am referring to strong policy-based arguments to justify fiddling: Let's take the example of Morano/Meran, "According to the 2011 census, 50.47% of the resident population spoke German". According to the guidelines, this actually suggests the article is titled incorrectly. Perhaps you'd like to argue in favour of renaming it. Also, 5.101.99.101 and by definition 46.252.205.187, is the only reason we've met. I will not believe this is not you. -- zzuuzz 18:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. That "stolchingh perenne" was a hyperbole, I'm not going to waste my life after him, I'll just control every now and then that he won't make uncorrect edits such as the 2 we're talking about. If you want to change the name of the town you can ask for it in the talk page, but as I can see somebody already tried and failed, also because the most common name used in English is Merano; obviously I'm not interested in changing the name of a town that until 1961 had a strong Italian majority. And the only reason we've met is Mai-Sachme: if he didn't report 46.252.205.187 I would have never known you even existed. I don't care if you think I'm 5.101.99.101 too, but I'm not, and I know. 1 last thing: if the three reverts rule isn't applied to Mai-Sachme or to this case for some reasons, we should close this report... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.20.2.95 (talk) 19:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm sick and tired now of the other user's behaviour. Let's take the article Silvius Magnago as an example. The IPs failed to make any useful contribution there. The user behind the IPs has just one goal: nationalistic fuss about German/Italian town names. What follows, is a complete list of the IPs' edits.

• 1st edit: useless change from German-Italian town names to Italian-German town names
• 2nd edit: useless change from German-Italian town names to Italian-German town names
• 3rd edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name (and that is an anachronism, as I explained on the talk page)
• 4th edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name
• 5th edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name
• 6th edit: exchange of a German name with an Italian name
• 7th edit: jumbling the German and Italian town names introducing a factually wrong implication (as I explained on the talk page)
• 8th edit: jumbling the German and Italian town names introducing a factually wrong implication

Sorry, but what the heck? In the meantime I tried to expand the article and added a bibliography. You are welcome to compare

Well. Let's end this. You have broken the so called three reverts rule. You have reverted 5 time in less than 24 hours. This was the original reason of this topic. You know that I'm just going to prevent you to change Italian names to German and nothing more. Don't try shifting attention to something else honestly risible. And about Merano as I said dozens of times the consensus is to use the most used name in English. Which is Merano. This is the status quo that you're trying to change without even proposing anything in Talk:Merano. You are wrong. Both in your opinion and in the way you've chosen to impose it. We are right. It's not strongly necessary to change every Meran to Merano. But it's not uncorrect. On the contrary changing Merano to Meran is against en.wikipedia consensus. There's no reason your will to call it Meran is more correct than our will to call it Merano. There's no way you're being right in what you do. Just face it.

• Result: Semiprotected Silvius Magnago and History of South Tyrol two months each. If IP editors have concerns about which names to use in the article they can try to get consensus on the talk page. When editors engage in nationalist edit warring in the South Tyrol it may fall under WP:ARBEE. Note that according to WP:Article titles the criterion is which name is most commonly used in English. The ethnic makeup of the town's population does not decide the issue. EdJohnston (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:75.80.175.107 reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: Semi)

Page

2015 Colorado Springs shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 20:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) to 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 20:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspect */"
   2. 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspect */"
2. 20:05, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692852585 by Lahaun (talk) Unsourced that he was part of that school."
3. 20:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692851973 by Winkelvi (talk) Uh...yes?"
4. Consecutive edits made from 19:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC) to 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
   1. 19:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Messed up the article."
   2. 19:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Aftermath */"
5. 19:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC) ""
6. 19:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 20:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2015 Colorado Springs shooting. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 20:12, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspect section */ resp"
2. 20:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "/* Suspect section */ +"

Comments:

IP editor behaving aggressively, ignoring warnings, edit summaries, and talk page discussion. Continues to edit war and push his content inclusion. Request a preventative block for continued disruption. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:17, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

• Note Also now edit warring at other articles in relation to the Colorado Springs shooting. . -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:52, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Result: 2015 Colorado Springs shooting has been semiprotected by User:CambridgeBayWeather. EdJohnston (talk) 03:29, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Vormeph reported by User:NebY (Result:Blocked 24h)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 17:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692830786 by Moxy (talk) Dead links will be replaced. Do not just reinstate dead links as it's not helpful. I'm taking this to the talk page."
2. 12:21, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692861118 by LouisAragon (talk) It's not mass-blanketing. It's called cleaning up the article of dead references/links. A dead reference is worse than no reference."
3. 15:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692964971 by LouisAragon (talk)"
4. 15:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692969500 by NebY (talk) See the talk page. The article is undergoing improvement; dead links are bound to be removed."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Result: Blocked 24 h.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:2607:F358:21:14C:CA4D:6399:D491:69BC reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Protected)

Page

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

User being reported

2607:F358:21:14C:CA4D:6399:D491:69BC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "pseudo-history and false etymology by disruptive editor Ejlabnet (only registered to vandalize this page)"
2. 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692990284 by Ejlabnet (talk) you try to falsify facts by your bogus and unsourced text"
3. 18:46, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692991250 by Ejlabnet (talk) pan-turksit pov pusher, adds his comments to article"
4. 18:52, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 692991840 by Ejlabnet (talk) disruptive editor, adds his pov and usnourced/personal comments"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:51, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This ip and user below are edit-warring since one hour. Some Admin should stop them, thanks. Alex2006 (talk) 18:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected by User:Nyttend. This article has become a sock festival. An admin who has some time might consider looking at other articles being dealt with by the same IPs, to see if semiprotection of other articles is needed. EdJohnston (talk) 03:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Ejlabnet reported by User:Alessandro57 (Result: Blocked)

Page

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

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 18:36, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "anti-azerbaiajnian propaganda to falsify and hide historical facts"
2. 18:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "intentional vandalism, anti-azerbaijanian activities"
3. 18:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "intentional vandalism, anti-azerbaijanian activities"
4. 18:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "disruptive editor, intentional vandalism, anti-azerbaijanian activities"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:50, 29 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

See Comment above. Alex2006 (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 20:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

User:T12999 reported by User:Alexbrn (Result: Already blocked)

Page

Vitamin K2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

T12999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "no that is cited from pear review paper in journal"
2. 07:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "is not copyrighted"
3. 08:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "going to have trouble.....this page is for the non sci...full of woowoo"
4. 10:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "hang on this is in dispute !!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 07:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Vitamin K2. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

• Already blocked NeilN 11:02, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Alexander Domanda reported by User:Cordless Larry (Result: )

Page: Rwanda (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alexander Domanda (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:Alexander Domanda#November 2015

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Rwanda#Anglicans

Comments:
This user, who seems to have a history of adding unsourced content to articles, is insisting on adding an unsourced figure for the number of Anglicans in Rwanda to this article. When challenged, they have pointed to another Misplaced Pages article as a source, but the figure is unsourced there. They have not responded to attempts to communicate. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Laurenlovelistenmusic reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: Blocked indefinitely)

Page

Windows 10 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 23:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "Do Not Reverted Against, I will be Angry"
3. 11:57, 30 November 2015 (UTC) "Right File, Do Not Reverted Against"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Similar edit war on Xbox One system software ViperSnake151  Talk  23:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

ViperSnake151, was Laurenlovelistenmusic warned about WP:3RR before this report? --NeilN 23:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Even if she hadn't been warned before, she was warned about various disruptive edits and also about being reported here to EW, and then continued/repeated her EW at Windows 10. "Repeated assertion" is not the same as WP:V, across multiple pages; in addition to misc process/template disruption. DMacks (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely by User:NeilN (which I support) for more evidence of deeper problems, and then I disabled talkpage access for even further disruption of her own talkpage while blocked. I think we're done here. DMacks (talk) 00:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

User:Tzily reported by User:Doc James (Result: )

Page: Metformin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tzily (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:

User:Aricialam reported by User:Khairulash (Result: Protected)

Page: Calvin Cheng (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aricialam (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:

Hello. I had written a section on a biography of a living person. It is by no means perfect, of course, but it is well-sourced, factual, and neutral. Aricialam, however, reverted this substantive edit for four times over the span of about 8-9 hours, thus blanking the entire section. In response, her reverts were undid by three different Misplaced Pages users including myself. Throughout Aricialam's reverts, a total of five warnings were given, none of which were heeded. It must also be noted that Aricialam had previously removed the warnings, although I had subsequently reverted them back. Finally, I'd like to humbly point out that Aricialam is extremely possessive over this article: she has reverted many, many worthwhile edits to the article prior to mine. A brief survey of Aricialam's reverts reveals that these edits share a striking similarity: that they usually cast the subject of the article in a poor light. I'm admittedly new to Misplaced Pages as an editor, but I'm sure this is inimical to the spirit of the Misplaced Pages community that I so greatly adore. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 18:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Mark Arsten (talk) 04:20, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
  • @Mark Arsten: Hello Mark Arsten, thank you for protecting it. Is it possible for you to undo her reverts before protecting it? At the moment, the page is missing an entire section due to her repeated reverts, which had breached the WP:3RR. Thank you. Khairulash (talk) 04:39, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring
• Misplaced Pages:Edit warring