Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vexorg (talk | contribs) at 03:15, 1 October 2009 (→User:Vexorg reported by User:Jayjg (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators. Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

• 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:Likebox reported by User:Ronhjones (Result:72 hrs )

Page: Quantum mysticism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Likebox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Most of the reversion is being done piecemeal, rather than automated reverts, hence there are a lot of edits for the page in a very short period of time - Total of 37 edits just today, and 13 yesterday. There are a similar number of edits on the talk page, but I don't think that there is much agreement in the content of the page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I have not done any reversion on this page. User:Lightbound has tried repeatedly to try to steer the page to a good version, and is not really succeeding.  Ronhjones  23:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this report, as I do not know diffs well enough yet to have made it myself. I was going to just give up on the article. I prefer to handle things at the lowest level, but User:Likebox has had problems with another user, User:OMCV, whom I came to aid through a posting on a portal page. The article was in "general distress" and in need of more editors. I came to assist and found that the article is written like an essay that argues that the term "quantum mysticism" is to be used as in the derisive sense. I did research on this, new subject to me, and found that quantum mysticism is an actual practice that has been in existence at least since 1993. I discussed changes on the talk page in an attempt to actually document this practice, report its claims, and facts. It is my opinion that Likebox is not going to simply give up the "old notion" of this articles previous state. I even went as far as trying to rename the article, simply because the contents do not match the topic of what quantum mysticism is. I would love to add content, but I am afraid that may be futile, since this person has dominated it. Thanks again, Ronhjones, as I appreciate someone looking out and see that I am just trying to do right by Misplaced Pages. I am unsure how many other editors have been dissuaded by this type of intimidation. Perhaps this will bring his actions to light. --68.51.237.91 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, this is my comment above, I am using the beta and secure sever log in and it logged me out of Wiki when I clicked to this page from the https namespace. I had to log in by non SSL means to be able to sign! --☯Lightbound☯ 18:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been only slightly involved in this wiki article, giving a "third opinon" and being involved in some minor discussions on the talk page. I more or less support Likebox' point of view as far as the content of the article is concerned. About editing the article, my experience here on[REDACTED] is that two editors with such different views on the focus of the articles cannot intensively edit the article at the same time without one or both of them violating 3RR. This doesn't have to be "edit warring".

I think locking the article pending a consensus reached on the talk page is the best way forward. An alternative approach could be that everyone agrees that one editor, say, Lightbound will be the only one who edits for, say, a week. Others editors (in this case Likebox) only give their comments on the talk page. This is the format that I recently tried with another editor on the entropy page. I had severe differences of opinion on the focus of that article with that editor. In that case this approach did not work because it turned out that the other editor did not understand the topic at all. But in principle, this could have worked had the other editor at least understood the topic. Count Iblis (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I must add that two users now have edited my user page. Not my talk page, but the user page itself. I can not help but feel this is related. One of the users was just created recently, User:Xobekil and I believe may be a sock-puppet or somehow related. I do not wish to edit the article for two weeks. I will just give up entirely. I think it is an injustice to wikipedia, though, that an article is to be used as a debate page and not written about the subject itself. I have also begun 3rd option and am attempting to use dispute resolution. I am quickly running out of steam, though. If it is going to be this difficult to document what the article means, perhaps I am not meant for wikipedia. --☯Lightbound☯ 21:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I recently reverted an edit by User:Xobekil on mass energy equivalence, and if you look at what I reverted, you see that User:Xobekil is unlikely to be a "copy" of likebox. Also, the edit you reverted wasn't insulting. You can't call that "vandalism". Look at the edit history of my user page to see real examples of vandalism. Count Iblis (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User has a history of edit warring and the page concerned was recently locked due to this editor and another edit warring. Blocked for 72 hours. Vsmith (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, now that the block is over, at least I am aware of this discussion.

I am very upset at this stealth-blocking which was proposed by an uninvolved party out of the blue. The edits of the user I was arguing with, lightbound, on the quantum mysticism page consisted of a bazillion rewrites and tag-insertions which were a monster to follow. I went through all of them one by one, and removed inappropriate tags. Lightbound is new to Misplaced Pages, and uses tags inappropriately sometimes. In particular, he tagged with "weasel words" something he should have tagged with "npov" (that's what he meant). In addition, he overused tags. So I deleted a bunch of redundant tags that he inserted. All of these modifications were unique, not challenged, and not reverted.

The other change I made was to move two sentences which used to be in the intro back into the intro. Considering the number of changes that he made, this was a completely novel edit. He then moved the sentences back to the other sections, and I did not challenge this.

NONE of my edits were in any sense of the word "reverts", except for the tag removal, which I explained and lightbound agreed. I am annoyed at the reviewer, who did not listen to the parties involved, and who confused a much more substantive disagreement with OMCV (which we worked out pretty much ok) with the absolute nothing involved here.

In the meantime, I was blocked, and lightbound has completely deleted the contents of the article which was the product of several editors working over many years.

I would suggest to the admins evaluating edit warring accusations to pay attention to involved parties (in this case lightbound and count iblis) and to ignore the input of non-involved third parties.Likebox (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Alexikoua reported by User:I Pakapshem (Result: )

Page: Souliotes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Consecutive 3rrs on two days, uncivil and uncompromising behavior in talk page, masked by false statements of compromise being reached in order to do reverts. Refuses to acknowledge me and other editors when discussing, deeming us not contributors. This can be seen in the talk page of the article.

--I Pakapshem (talk) 00:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Reporter is blocked and I'm looking at fixing things anyway. Moreschi (talk) 14:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually the 3 last 'reverts' had nothing to do with reverts ], ], ], moreover the edits were made from 24 to 26 Sept. (3 days). The specific User:I_Pakapshem, was blocked due to numerous wp:npa, wp:incivility especially in Souliotes talk page ] as a result of a wp:ani case against him, apart from having a block recort in his history log ]. The report is really bad faith, while his history log is just nationalist advocating, fruitless reporting and endless reverting ]. Moreover he never seems to understand the reason he is blocked ]. Alexikoua (talk) 17:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No wonder, after I_Pakapshem's last block things had somewhat settled, and a degree of conscensus has been reach, especially due to Moreshi's vital help.Alexikoua (talk) 17:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Focak reported by User:Inter-man (Result: Warned)

Page: Barcelona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Focak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:
He removes the information based on official data (the number of inhabitants of city) from official page of city and Statistical Offices, he on the basis of colloquial data about metropolitan area. Exist are many sources about metropolitan area representing different of numbers (from 4 to 5 million). The number of inhabitants of city is one, official data. Officialy in city of Barcelona lives 1,615,908 peoples. He believes that (colloquial term) "the metropolitan area" shows that the city is great, official figures (about the number of inhabitants of city) do not interest him. He four times he delete information from article. It is 4RR. Inter-man (talk) 10:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Warned Nja 18:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf. (Second report, Result: 1 wk)

Page: Ethnic flag (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: MessiniaGreece (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent slow edit warring and breach of Arbcom-imposed 1RR:

1. 26 Septemer 12:15
2. 27 September 12:04

• Continuing a slow revert-war over several days. Was already blocked for both a 3RR violation and simultaneous breach of Arbcom-imposed Macedonia naming 1RR three days ago (see #User:MessiniaGreece reported by Fut.Perf (Result: 12 h) above, still on this page). Has now repeated the same reverts twice. Single-purpose account, obvious nationalist POV motivation, refuses any discussion, gives no reasons even in edit summaries, just slowly repeats the same series of edits over and over again. Repeated warning given here: . Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - Blocked 1 week for a violation of the 1RR restriction on Macedonian naming issues. MessiniaGreece has never left a comment on a Talk page; his sole purpose on Misplaced Pages seems to be doing nationalist reverts. The following language is found in WP:NCMAC:

"Editors are reminded that all contentious edits touching upon Macedonia naming practices also continue to be subject to a 1RR restriction. In cases covered by this guideline, editors reinstating the version conforming to it are not subject to this restriction."

EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:PiCo reported by User:Lisa for third time (Result: 1 month)

Page: Chronology of the Bible (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: PiCo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert: 02:35, 13 September 2009 Sorry Lisa, that's a pretty poor-quality version, very unscholarly, not like the present one.
• 2nd revert: 22:22, 13 September 2009 rv to the sourced version - Lisa, you need to be less emotional about this and more constructive.
• 3rd revert: 01:02, 14 September 2009 Lisa, there's obviously no consensus,, since I don't agree with you.
• 4th revert: 05:53, 14 September 2009 Consensus is when everyone agrees, and we don't - so let's stick with the version that has reliable sources.
• 3RR warning: 13:30, 14 September 2009
• Report to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:35, 14 September 2009
• 31 hour block: 05:59, 15 September 2009
• 31 hours later: 12:59, 16 September 2009
• 5th revert: 10:02, 17 September 2009 rv to the version with reliable sources.
• 6th revert: 23:53, 17 September 2009 Sorry Lisa, but I hope someday you'll understand how necessary this is to me :)
• Report to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring 13:12, 18 September 2009
• 31 hour block: 00:20, 19 September 2009
• 7th revert: 11:54, 26 September 2009 Since there's a consensus for this version (me, Cush, dab) we'll take it as the default, ok?

PiCo's rationale:

• 09:59, 17 September 2009
• 11:29, 17 September 2009

Comments:
Can PiCo be blocked from this article? This is the seventh time he's reverted it to the version that he created, unilaterally, after deleting the entire article. The very first edit on the article after he was banned a second time for edit warring on it, and it's a complete revert. Again. -Lisa (talk) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Have to side with Lisa on this. There are suffient editors involved to constitute a true content dispute, but PiCo's methodology of wholesale deletion of notable and verifiable information is wreaking havoc. I've taken great pains to invite PiCo to ADD notable and verifiable information without DELETING notable and verifiable contributions from other editors -- to no avail. This shouldn't even be an edit war, since "our side" is welcoming of collaborative additions from "his side." We value what he can add, but deleting the work of others is pure and simple edit warring.SkyWriter (Tim) (talk) 15:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm now discussing with PiCo what to do, on his talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - PiCo has been given a semi-voluntary block for one month, as a condition of the 3RR complaint being closed. (Without his agreement to this result, some kind of topic ban might have been enacted). See User talk:PiCo#Your edit war at Chronology of the Bible for details. We don't usually do voluntary blocks. Any admin may substitute another close if you prefer, but then you own the problem :-). EdJohnston (talk) 02:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:89.216.192.29 reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: 15h)

• Page: Prizren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Page: Đakovica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: 89.216.192.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Đakovica

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

Prizren

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of hours Nja 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Pagliaccioknows reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: Warned)

• Page: Prizren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Pagliaccioknows (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• • Warned Nja 18:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Eduardo Sellan III reported by Ophois (talk) (Result:Warning)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List of iCarly episodes‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Eduardo Sellan III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 05:32, 24 September 2009 (edit summary: "This is even necessary?")
2. 21:13, 24 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 315888979 by Ophois (talk)")
3. 05:49, 26 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 316003493 by Ophois (talk)")
4. 22:31, 26 September 2009 (edit summary: "But why would you want to put unnecessary things in the article? Why do we need bracketing the number again?")
5. 20:55, 27 September 2009 (edit summary: "I know, but again the numbers of the first season is idiotic.")
6. 21:02, 27 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 316560907 by Ophois (talk)")
7. 22:49, 27 September 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 316564534 by Fetchfan88 (talk)")
8. 01:54, 28 September 2009 (edit summary: "Already explained in the discussion for a long time. You by chance encounter?]])")

• Diff of warning: here

— Ophois (talk) 06:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Giving the user a final warning. I don't think English is his first language, so I feel it better if I ensure communication before dealing out blocks. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 18:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bibliolover reported by User:LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (Result: 24h to submitter)

Page: Banned Books Week (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bibliolover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , plus I attempted using history comments for guidance.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , and here I added a huge section to explain why the edit should stay included: , and here I summarize why the quote is needed: , and here I try to explain what is consensus: and , but it was of no avail.

Comments:

Bibliolover simply will not work with the community. Further evidence of this can be found in a complaint he filed against me here. It was his 32rd edit, and he's already acting against the community. For me, this may be my first 3RR filing, or perhaps any filing, and I've been here for years. I have to come here because his disruptive editing needs attention. He needs to work with the community, not in spite of it. I and others have provided gentle guidance but it was been of no avail. Also, he makes frequent personal attacks against me.

Let me admit I made in the past an edit or two over the 3RR line, but I admitted I lost track and apologized, and I believed the edits to be vandalism since they were by a newbie totally ignoring guidance. And now, I am not myself reverting a third time, so the article stands with the encyclopedic material removed, material that I brought to the community's attention precisely to obtain consensus as a result of the newbie's disruptive editing.

Please help. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 08:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

LegitimateAndEvenCompelling is, himself, guilty of edit warring. He began by adding a quote that had been disputed and removed previously, and reverting edits to retain it in the article despite objections raised by myself and a second Misplaced Pages editor, Stephan Schulz (See here.)

My filing of a legitimate COI inquiry on the COI noticeboard is not edit warring, or an attack on the Misplaced Pages community, but a good-faith attempt to use the community's tools to raise a serious question about LegitimateAndEvenCompelling's obvious conflict of interest (so acknowledged by Atama and .) It is uncivil for LAEC to characterize my legitimate inquiry as such.

Nor are my edits vandalism; they were done as good faith attempts to improve the article, add substantive material, and provide a balance to try and maintain NPOV. (Frankly, it appears that LAEC characterizes any edits by a "dumb newbie" that contradict his opinions as "vandalism.") Again, it is uncivil for LAEC to characterize my edits as such. -- Bibliolover (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Result - 24 hours to LegitimateAndEvenCompelling. When an editor who is in a conflict-of-interest situation is edit warring to keep certain links out of the article, it is hard to justify under our policies. He is welcome to express his concern on the talk page. To keep on reverting during a Talk discussion loses all credit. I suggest that Bibliolover should avoid reverting during a Talk discussion as well. EdJohnston (talk) 16:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:Kreshnik25 (Result: 31 h )

Page: Adem Jashari
User being reported: Tadija (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This kind of editing is just plain Personal Point of View without any kind of reason. Note "gang of fascist terrorists" he is trying to add. Combined with nationalist messages warning about the "future" and vandalizing in my userpage and talkpage , , I think my report really belongs here. --Kreshnik25 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

31 hours. Moreschi (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Kildruf reported by User:O Fenian (Result: 15h)

Page: United Kingdom – United States relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Kildruf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: and

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The first revert is a revert of this edit I made. As I had the article watchlisted after editing it, I noticed Kildruf make inappropriate additions regarding the Lockerbie bombing with language such as "heinous crime" or largely duplicate information, and attempted to discuss things politely on their talk page without resorting to the use of warning templates, and this was met with a claim of vandalism and threats to get an administrator. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 00:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 15 hours Nja 07:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Otto4711 and User:WölffReik reported by User:Alansohn (Result: both blocked )

Page: Travis Bickle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Users being reported: Otto4711 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WölffReik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

By User:Otto4711

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

By User:WölffReik

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: for Otto4711 for WölffReik

Edit war is based on whether article is independently notable. WölffReik has been trying to add sources to establish notability, while Otto4711 has been reverting back to a redirect. Otto4711 has two prior blocks for 3RR violations. Alansohn (talk) 01:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

1 week for Otto and 48 hours for Wolff. Moreschi (talk) 01:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Gallery of passports edit warring reported by User:Turkish Flame (Result: page protected )

Page: Gallery of passports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Bosonic dressing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Earl of China (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), etc.

Comments:
Please see the history and the talk page. Long term edit warring without any discussion. User:Bosonic dressing, the craetor of the article, possesses it like its owner and is edit warring. User:Earl of China, and others are also edit warring. Admins should protect the article and block some users.

Protected for 1 week since too many users are involved to justify blocking. –Juliancolton |  18:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I kind of object to being included here. I made an edit then resorted to discussion on the talk page. Bosonic Dressing, however, is practicing WP:OWN, and is reverting at least four other editors (myself, Earl of China, Readin, Wikilaurent) on the Taiwan presentation, and one or two others on some Turkish territory. I do not believe he has surpassed 3RR, but the WP:OWN issue is pretty clear - he wrote it and it is going to stay his way. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 18:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, if any further disruption occurs, I can hand out specific warnings. I generally agree with your assessment, and I'll leave a note on Turkish Flame's talk page asking him to revisit his report in light of your comments. –Juliancolton |  18:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am simply trying to maintain a semblance of order to an article that, yes, I created and has been subject to POV editing from the beginning and other commentators above. The report has little merit (at least as directed at me), and reporter even less so: Turkish_Flame has been blocked multiple times for edit warring regarding Turkey's placement in this article and others: the report is out of spite for being called to account. And, correction: SchmuckytheCat made an edit, I reverted it, he then nominated the article for deletion presumably out of similar spite (a report on which Turkish_Flame also commented, curiously), has reverted since, then initiates discussion days later on the talk page (amidst a troll who has been doing little else but reverting recently), and now proceeds to weigh in further on how the article is structured? Rather hypocritical, if not disingenuous -- so much so, that any assumption of good faith there may have been with this editor has been lost, and this editor's comments no longer register with me; in the least, this editor's commentary should not be taken at face value. Anyhow, it seems moot to lock down an article that will likely be merged with the list of passports, which is fine with me. So, Jc, you may want to reevaluate your assessment. Bosonic dressing (talk) 19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit tennis on Infinity Bridge (Result: Stale)

• Infinity Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 77.99.190.88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Getting a tad fed up of 77.99.190.88 making the same repeated, erroneous, unsourced change to http://en.wikipedia.org/Infinity_Bridge Having done the bulk of the legwork on this article I could walk away from this but there are users prepared to repeatedly roll it back every time. This needs some kind of intervention. Stuffed cat (talk) 01:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Result - Stale. The cited IP has not continued to revert since the last change on 28 September. Since he is quarrelling about how to state the authorship of the bridge design, why not start a Talk discussion on this point? You could file a new complaint if he continues to revert without giving his reasons on Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:WTF95 reported by User:Mjrmtg (Result: Semi)

Page: Sylvester, Georgia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: WTF95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sylvester,_Georgia&diff=next&oldid=316376576
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sylvester,_Georgia&diff=next&oldid=316402721
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sylvester,_Georgia&diff=next&oldid=316752524
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Sylvester,_Georgia&diff=next&oldid=316807244

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: On each of my reverts I've asked him to stop vandalizing the page on the comment line.

Result - Semiprotected. POV-warring by brand-new editor, denying Sylvester's status as a peanut capital: Sylvester .. is not the "Peanut Capital of the World" due to its lack of peanut production. Dothan, Alabama is the true "Peanut Capital of the World". EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Vexorg reported by User:Jayjg (Result: )

Page: Criticism of YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Northern Ireland Friends of Israel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Benjamin H. Freedman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Vexorg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous versions reverted to: Criticism of YouTube, Northern Ireland Friends of Israel, Benjamin H. Freedman

• Criticism of YouTube: ,,,,,,,,,,,
• Northern Ireland Friends of Israel: ,,,,
• Benjamin H. Freedman.,,,

Comments:
User:Vexorg has, for the past few days, done little besides revert three articles. In the case of Criticism of YouTube, he has reverted 12 times in 9 days, fighting 3 editors, with 0 comments on the article Talk: page. In the case of Northern Ireland Friends of Israel he has reverted 5 times in 9 days, fighting what appear to be the same editors, with 0 comments on the article Talk: page. In the case of Benjamin H. Freedman, he reverted a couple of times, then went away for a month, then came back to the article to resume the edit war, again, with 0 comments on the article Talk: page. He's well aware that edit-warring like this is inappropriate; he's been blocked 6 times for edit-warring, and has even told one of his opponents to stop edit-warring. His new strategy appears to be revert two or three times, then go away for a period, then return to do the same again. Jayjg 02:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a long-term pattern of edit-warring to me, and the five previous blocks for edit warring do nothing to dispel that impression. I suggest to Vexorg that he agree to a 1RR per week restriction in lieu of a block. His last block was for one week. EdJohnston (talk) 00:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd recent.;ly noted the edit warring by this user too. If he doesn't respond soon one remedy or the other should be imposed.   Will Beback  talk  01:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Hello. The user User:Jayjg who has reported me here has had a long term agenda against me. All my edits are in good faith and much of it is with sourced material. It's also worth noting that the user User:Jayjg who made this complaint didn't even bother to notify me so I could have a right of reply. Jayjg made this complaint 26 hours ago. It took ANOTHER editor EdJohnston to notify me . Thankyou Ed. I've made nearly 3,000 edits on[REDACTED] and yes I have been got caught up in edit warring in the past, I don't deny it, but it has been insignificant compared to my total amount of edits. But it's only with a passion to improve Misplaced Pages. But remember it takes two to edit war. Anyway as an ordinary editor I cannot compete with Admistrators like User:Jayjg who have agendas against other editors. Therefore I shall take a break from editing for a while, especially those articles included in this complaint. I think anyone looking at this complaint should note the deliberate disadvantage against me by the lack of notification to myself regarding this complaint. Hopefully a non biased administrator will attend. Vexorg (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:68.224.86.3 reported by User:tide rolls (Result: IP blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Chickadee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 68.224.86.3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

User continues to add article content to a disambiguation page despite repeated attempts to gain an explanation as to their reasoning.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

User will not discuss their changes after repeated attempts at contact on their talk page...see , and

Comments:

Editing problem has been (we think) resolved by making Chickadee redirect to an article and move the dab page to Chickadee (disambiguation). Only purpose to pursue further would be editor education. (John User:Jwy talk) 17:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Result: User blocked for 24 hours. The content might be appropriate on Tit (bird), but the edits to the disambig page were inappropriate. Hopefully the block encourages him to discuss. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Everyman21 reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result:Indef Blocked )

Page: Code Lyoko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Everyman21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Additional content added, but the list is the same.

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

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user is a self-admitted sock (see above diff of talk) of MataNui44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was blocked for use of multiple accounts and edit warring. He's returned to the same behavior. The source he's using has already been discussed with him at length under an IP address, and does not adequately support his assertions. Nevertheless, he persists. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I reverted that article three times only, not four. Everyman21 (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You restored your previously deleted broadcast list, knowingly. That is a revert. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 06:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no - It was remade from scratch, with sources added. That's not a revert. You're the one at fault here. I've given you sources. You find whatever fault you can in them. Everyman21 (talk) 06:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Result blocked as a checkuser  Confirmed sock. Consider taking this kind of thing to SPI in the future. — Jake Wartenberg 02:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Daedalus969 reported by User:Radiopathy (Result: No action taken)

Page: 867-5309/Jenny (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Daedalus969 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User keeps removing a speedy tag from an article, with a hangon and an active discussion in progress, which was wrongly moved to an inappropriate title. Radiopathy •talk• 07:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you that that template is not to be misused. You were misusing it, labeling good-faith edits as vandalism when they were clearly not, and using it to try and move a page under discussion. As it is under discussion, it is a controversial move, and therefore the template doesn't apply.— Dædαlus 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't violated any policies, I've only made 3 reverts, if I had made four, there would be a problem, but I haven't.— Dædαlus 07:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The page was not under discussion when I first speedied it. It clearly needs to be moved back to its original title, since the m dash in the phone number is not what WP:MOS calls for; the proper symbol was already in place, and the person who moved the article has a history of misguided edits: . Radiopathy •talk• 07:25, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Your point? It's under discussion now, and therefore the move is controversial, therefore the template cannot be used.— Dædαlus 07:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It's under discussion because the editor who made the bad move put a {{hangon}} tag under the speedy tag, which is proper procedure - and the tag stays til the discussion is over. It's not a controversial move since the editor took it upon himself to move to a bad title and his move needs to be reverted. so your reverts were entirely inappropriate. Radiopathy •talk• 07:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No, its under discussion because you don't like the move, and because it is under discussion, it would be controversial to move when consensus is in the process of being developed, therefore the template cannot be used. It doesn't work like you say. I've been here longer than you, I know what I'm talking about.— Dædαlus 07:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, what do you know, the speedy was declined as it was not 'uncontroversial'.— Dædαlus 10:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

And you are misguided as well. There is no m dash in the phonenumber. Here is a comparison chart to assist you:

	glyph	Unicode	HTML	HTML/XML	TeX
figure dash	‒	U+2012 (8210)	none	‒ or ‒	none
en dash	–	U+2013 (8211)	–	– or –	--
em dash	—	U+2014 (8212)	—	— or —	---
horizontal bar	―	U+2015 (8213)	none	― or ―
swung dash	${\displaystyle \sim }$	U+2053 (8275)	none	⁓ or ⁓

The one used is the first one, the figure dash, used in phone numbers. It is not the m dash as you incorrectly think.— Dædαlus 07:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note to anyone reviewing this, I have self-reverted.— Dædαlus 08:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No action taken. Speedy deletion tags removed in good faith by third-parties should not be returned, but instead be discussed, although it would have been preferable for one of the parties to go to WP:ANI in leiu of edit warring. The drama should be over now, so no benefit from blocking either party. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Wiki alf and IP sockpuppets reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: )

Page: Russell Blaylock (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Wiki alf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Note that User:Wiki alf has also used two IP addresses: 86.3.142.2 and 163.1.147.64 in an apparent attempt to avoid WP:3RR. In addition, User:Wiki libs, who to my knowledge has never previously edited this or any similar article and thus appears to be acting as a meatpuppet or sockpuppet, made the following reversion: .

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User responded to a talk page invitation from another editor by dismissing the need to discuss:

Comments:

• I have not exceeded the three revert rule and I am not engaged in an edit war. The last edit I made to Blaylock's article was to change the word "believes" to "states" as neither sources states that this is his belief, merely that, in the Free Lance-Star source it says "Dr. Russell Blaylock in his book, "Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills," stated that the ingredients" and in the accessmylibrary.com source recording E Magaine it says "causing damage of varying degrees," argues neurosurgeon and author Dr. Russell Blaylock" . Making an argument can said to be a statement, but not a belief, and the first souces uses "stated", I changed the word. It is hardly edit-warring. On reflection though, maybe the words we should use are "has stated".86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:06, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:Wiki alf/IP socks has clearly made at least four separate groups of edits in ten hours, all of them involving some form of reversion. This, in addition to apparently asking a previously uninvolved friend (with a rather similar name) to make a meatpuppet-type reversion. The rationale for these edits doesn't matter; they were done, they were done using different accounts/IPs to avoid scrutiny, and they continued after a 3RR warning. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The fourth did not include some kind of reversion as adequately, if not eloquently stated above. I made no on- or off wiki- communication with Wiki libs who is on a different continent and is most definitely a distinctly different being than I. I replied to Buba hotep's and Libsy's comments on my absence on my talk page as I logged in for "!voting" at an AfD that Carryonandkeepcalm created for the Russell Blaylock article. If Libsy checked my edits and thought that the removal of information pertinent to the AfD was not a good idea and changed it back, that is his affair, go ask him, I made no contact with him except on my logged-in account's talk page, which you can see has no such requests for any action by him regarding this matter. I am now at my home, so until I get up this will be the computer in front of me, which rule makes me log in to make a simple, non-controversial, change of one word, which in no way hid anything, the least of which is any form of reversion.86.3.142.2 (talk) 20:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Venomspider123 reported by User:Bobisbob (Result: )

Page: Venom (comics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Venomspider123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Venomspider has stopped reverting after the warning but he doesn't seem to be listening, perhaps a final warning or a short sharp shock. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186 reported by User:GoldCoaster (Result: )

Page: Celebration (Madonna album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Legolas2186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (applies to last four reverts)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here (User removed the warning from his talk page with the edit summary "go to hell")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Typical case of hardened fan trying to take ownership of article pages, going mad with the Revert button, and trying to turn Misplaced Pages into a fansite for his idol by removing information that does not show the article subject in the best possible light, even when sourced. No less than six reverts were made by him on this one article in a 6 hour period, the last four of which were regarding the same specific material. Attempts by another editor to discuss the issue on the article's discussion page were met with a general lack of civility. A warning about edit-warring left on the reported user's talk page was removed by him with the edit summary "go to hell". User is clearly out of control and needs to learn Misplaced Pages rules before doing any more editing. GoldCoaster (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not really worthy of a revert war, the addition is not very important even if it is right or wrong, take him to the talkpage and talk about it for a couple of days . imo, Off2riorob (talk) 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)Reverting seems to have stopped. Off2riorob (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Raymond Dundas reported by The Four Deuces (talk) (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Modern liberalism in the United States (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Raymond Dundas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Revert comparison ("compare"): this revision (diff from previous).

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

1. 21:57, 29 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "please explain how the edits have a conservative POV. Your additions have an incessant bias")
2. 23:41, 29 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv. it was succinct enough to explain in the revert. If you disagree, please discuss it on the talk page")
3. 16:04, 30 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "Rick has not responded in months. You have not responded at all. Why do you refuse to discuss it? If you cannot substanitate it, why do you insist on keeping it here?")
4. 21:34, 30 September 2009 (compare) (edit summary: "rv, I have no intention on repeating myself")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

The Four Deuces (talk) 21:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

Result: Blocked for 24 hours. I know that this is actually his third block for edit warring on the same page, but the last one was so long ago, hopefully 24 hours is enough to prevent further disruption. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

User:82.29.16.209 reported by User:MassassiUK (Result: )

Page: Stedman Pearson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 82.29.16.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:
• 12th revert:
• 13th revert:
• 14th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Not a 3RR violation, but IP user has been edit-warring on this article for the past month, continuing to revert sourced material without reason because it is not flattering towards the subject. He has been warned three times now by another editor on his talk page, but has persisted with behaviour. Article page was even semi-protected for several days due to this, but once protection expired, the IP user continued. Request lengthy or even permanent blocking for the IP address in question. MassassiUK 23:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just had a little look at this and the article does seem to have a poorly cited controversy, which this ip has been reverting, I would say the article needs a little look to ensure it is not a BLP issue, small artlicle with a big controversy section, I suggest if the ip is blocked ( he has been warned on his talkpage) that the block is small as a first block and that we should try to talk to the ip to see what the problem is. Off2riorob (talk) 01:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I just left the ip a welcome, he has been here a month and has only been warned and never welcomed.Off2riorob (talk) 01:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Characters in Unicode are referenced in prose via the "U+" notation. The hexadecimal number after the "U+" is the character's Unicode code point. The decimal equivalent is shown in parentheses.
2. Specifically, the predefined character entity reference that can be used in an HTML document in place of a literal dash.
3. Specifically, the numeric character reference that can be used in an HTML or XML document in place of a literal dash.

• Administrative backlog
• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring