Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MiszaBot II (talk | contribs) at 06:36, 22 June 2013 (Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 48h) to Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive216.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Surtsicna reported by User:SergeWoodzing (Result: No action)

Page: Swedish Royal Family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Surtsicna (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: article talk page (same link as below)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It has been recommended here that I report this after several days of trying to figure out how and/or get help from someone witrh experience. I don't know if I'm doing this right. To me, forms like this are dizzying and it takes a long sitting to get things right, trial & error, trial & error, trial & error, many times over and over. In all these years, I've never experienced anything like this. And I hope never to see it again. That's why I asked and hoped for help. SergeWoodzing (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC) -->

PS Just found out that this is a second reported violation by this user.--SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:02, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that all of those diffs are reverts. Even if they were, none would count as a revert for the purpose of the 3RR, per the last of the exemptions listed here (removing unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP) does not count as a revert for the purposes of 3RR). I've explained that at Talk:Swedish Royal Family. SergeWoodzing insists that his "common sense" trumps verifiability, something I strongly disagree with, especially when it comes to biographies of living persons. I also have point out at how sad it is to see a user call for block of another user seven days after the dispute ended. Blocks serve to prevent further disruption, not to provide vindictive users with an opportunity to spite others. Surtsicna (talk) 13:09, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

My notification on this user's talk page was immediately removed. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Which I was entirely allowed to do. Your obligation was to notify me and my right was to remove the notification. Anyway, as Huon neatly put it at Talk:Swedish Royal Family: "... there's no edit warring to be stopped any more, and secondly, Surtsicna clearly acted in good faith and may well have been within the bounds of the BLP exception. Reporting him may well result in a WP:BOOMERANG." There has been no "edit-warring" for the past seven days, so the only purpose of this report could be to spite me. Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

It is also untrue that you have "never experienced anything like this" "in all these years". In 2012, you also wrongly reported a user for breaking the rule. Why would you claim otherwise? Surtsicna (talk) 13:29, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: No action. The dispute is over a week old (June 10), and the apparent reverts may be justified by BLP. See this report from Svenska Dagbladet, which suggests that O'Neill's title remains to be decided. Who wants to translate "Nu blir han en del av kungafamiljen, men om han även blir en del av kungahuset är ju inte klart. Titeln återstår att se, den meddelas enligt riksmarskalken först i samband med bröllopet, konstaterar Elisabeth Tarras-Wahlberg." Giving O'Neill a specific royal title without a reliable source could violate WP:BLP. in a June 8 report on the wedding the New York Times did not say anything about O'Neill's royal status. EdJohnston (talk) 23:12, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

??? It seems, and has always seemed, clear to everyone else that no one ever has claimed that O'Neill has any "royal status" but on the contrary is a member of the King's extended family - kungafamiljen - which is not royal. Excluding him from that would be like excluding your sister's husband from your father's family, that's all. Can't be done, as I see it. I think you missed the point here, but, oh well, I'll certainly never bother going to all the trouble of reporting anybody, even a previous offender, for a 3RR violation again. Disappointed in the process and the outcome. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A "previous offender" is not automatically guilty of whatever you accuse him of. You have a history of wrongly reporting users for edit-warring, so it's quite comforting to know that you will not do so in the future. There is a very reliable source that lists the members of kungafamiljen, and if that source excludes someone (a living person!), we should absolutely not include that person - especially not if no source whatsoever is provided to back it up. You are obviously ignoring it, but I'll write it once again: blocks serve to prevent disruptive editing, not to give you (or anyone else) the satisfaction of seeing someone blocked. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Cwcw182 reported by User:Escape Orbit (Result: Warned)

Page

Andy Murray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Cwcw182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 16 2013 7:35 PM "Scottish is not yet a nationality. Being born in Scotland, England, Northern Ireland or Wales currently makes you British, like it or not."
2. Jun 16 2013 7:42 PM ""
3. Jun 16 2013 8:29 PM ""
4. Jun 16 2013 10:41 PM ""
5. Jun 16 2013 10:51 PM ""
6. Jun 18 2013 5:24 PM ""
7. Jun 18 2013 7:34 PM ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 16 2013 10:43 PM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Andy Murray."
2. Jun 16 2013 10:48 PM "read guidelines on UK nationals"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

There is no such nationality as "Scottish". Andy Murray is British nationality, and the Misplaced Pages page even contradicts itself by defining him as "Scottish" alongside the summary box which states "Country: Great Britain". By repeatedly reverting the Scottish contradiction, I am being "edit warred" as much as I am "edit warring", except I am trying to amend to an internationally recognised nationality, as opposed to the future fantasy of the SNP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwcw182 (talk • contribs) 21:50, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Furthermore, please find the Misplaced Pages entry on British nationality: http://en.wikipedia.org/British_nationality_law. "Under the law in effect from 1 January 1983, a child born in the UK to a parent who is a British citizen or 'settled' in the UK is automatically a British citizen by birth". There is no Scottish nationality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwcw182 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Cwcw182 is warned to stop warring about the nationality of Andy Murray until he gets consensus on the talk page. A discussion in Talk:Andy Murray/Archive 12 suggests that there was consensus in 2010 to describe Andy Murray as Scottish. See WP:UKNATIONALS for more background. If you believe that consensus has changed, you should be able to get people on the Talk page to support you. So far there's no indication that they do. EdJohnston (talk) 21:28, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Kmzayeem reported by User:Baigmirzawaqar (Result: nothing)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:Kmzayeem (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:Kmzayeem has violated 4RR many times on Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Persecution of Biharis in Bangladesh. He is adding Spa tags to other users. I am a new user. I am not an SPA. He keeps adding tags, and reverts newcomers. Block him please. 08:41, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment: User:Baigmirzawaqar has just made 20 edits in total and his first edit after the creation of the account was on the AfD. I have tagged his vote with {{SPA}} and explained it on his talk page as well but still the user is continuously removing the tag. Even after being warned by another user, he again removed the tag.--Zayeem 17:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment:User:Kmzayeem is a very disruptive pov pusher who has now started attacking me I have hardly any interest in the topic and made one keep vote which ticked of Kzayeem anyone who votes keep becomes his enemy my interest are elsewhere related to Bihari people and Urdu yet he now accesses me of socking he now goes around vandalising the AFD with his abuse please either block him or remove his access to the AFD. RameshJain9 (talk) 18:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide any diff that I accused you of being a sock? However I did comment on this SPI a few minutes earlier which was started by another user on 10 June.--Zayeem 18:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Off course you clumped me other users you suspect of using a single purpose accounts on the AFD discussion so do you have amnesia? you do something them completely deny it. RameshJain9 (talk) 19:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• You all seem to have nothing better to do than to screw around, get on each others' nerves, and bloat an AfD with commentary. The SPA tag is warranted and I have restored it. The rest is a bunch of nonsense and namecalling; we can always start blocking one party for edit warring and the other for making false claims of vandalism. I'm going to close this before you all yell so loud that I have to block all of you. Drmies (talk) 00:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

I've only reverted their removals of the SPA tags, nothing else. I never made any personal attacks (have asked Ramesh to provide a diff but he hasn't provide one).--Zayeem 08:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:82.137.15.41 reported by User:Mathnerd 101 (Result: Protected)

Page

Gregorian Bivolaru (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 19 2013 9:38 AM "Undid revision 560621592 by Bollfooot (talk) vandalism"
2. Jun 19 2013 9:50 AM "Undid revision 560020413 by 213.103.190.191 (talk) vandalism"
3. Consecutive edits made from Jun 19 2013 10:02 AM to Jun 19 2013 10:03 AM
   1. Jun 19 2013 10:02 AM "Undid revision 560628771 by Proud-of-the-new-Romanian-justice (talk) repetead vandalism"
   2. Jun 19 2013 10:03 AM "Undid revision 560629782 by Proud-of-the-new-Romanian-justice (talk) repeated vandalism"
4. Jun 19 2013 10:07 AM "added vandalised references"
5. Jun 19 2013 10:12 AM "Undid revision 560631896 by Valosu (talk) yes from his site. please stop vadalising"
6. Jun 19 2013 10:19 AM "/* Notes */ added note about the HRWF report"
7. Consecutive edits made from Jun 19 2013 10:21 AM to Jun 19 2013 10:22 AM
   1. Jun 19 2013 10:21 AM "added PDVN"
   2. Jun 19 2013 10:22 AM ""
8. Jun 19 2013 10:25 AM "user valosu is a vandal"
9. Jun 19 2013 10:28 AM "Undid revision 560634023 by Valosu (talk) realy"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 19 2013 10:05 AM "Warning: Edit warring on Gregorian Bivolaru. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

These two editors have been engaged in an edit war for a couple days. The other editor has also been warned, but has not reverted since their warning. -Mathnerd 101 17:37, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected for 10 days by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Obitauri reported by User:DVdm (Result: Protected)

Page: Matzoon (yogurt) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Obitauri (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: and pointing to User talk:DVdm#what?.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: not by me on article talk page. Discussion on talk page already stale: Talk:Matzoon (yogurt)

Comments:

The other party in the war, Lori-m (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contacted me on my talk page. I explained, gave some advice and gave both editors a 3RR warning on their page. User Obitauri just continued now. I think Lori-m understood the message. - DVdm (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I have notified both users about this report: and - DVdm (talk) 20:17, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Since the beginning of the article had information that the drink is of Armenian descent. Information was referring to authoritative sources in which it was written "Armenian origin." Then comes Obitauri, and says:"Matsoni is Georgian food not Armenian. Armenians just took it to their region and everyone knows its Georgian". He began to change in the article the word "Armenian" in the word "Georgian". He removed the word "Armenian" is not only the article, but from the citation of the source. In this article there are two sources that say the Armenian origin of the drink. They write, "Of Armenian origin" and "Matzoon or mazun, originating in Armenia". However Obitauri do not like and it changes the word "Armenian" to "Georgian" He then led the source and said that they speak of Georgian origin of the drink, but there is no mention of this. His sources do not speak of Georgian origin. Please look at all edits Obitauri since June 9. He broke a few rules Misplaced Pages. I told him this many times. However, he does not care. Please return the article to the version before the war edits.--Lori-m (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

I talk about edits after you warned me. This edits are not breaking rules. I just wanted to fix conflict and see talk what I say: "Darra Goldstein. The Georgian Feast: The Vibrant Culture and Savory Food of the Republic of Georgia. University of California Press, 1999, p. 51

http://books.google.ru/books?id=3PM_FnWgPBAC&pg=PA51&dq=%22Matsoni%22&hl=ru&sa=X&ei=NbHBUYC0FYv0sgbQmYHoDg&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Matsoni%22&f=false This source totally says Georgian origin, which you said it doesnt.

This totally shows its Georgian. "University of California Press", this is one of most reliable sources. We need to discuss both sources, which says Armenian and other which says Georgian as of this article became battlefield of editing... We need to check both sources... But before we must not say anything about origin in article cause we found 2 sources one says other, 2nd other thing we need to remove origin from article"

Then I edited article and removed origin of this product cause its discussing right now, I shown Lori-m source he removed it before this edit warring. He removed several resources from this article which said it was Georgian just see history. I just wanted to fix this and did some mistakes in editing (such as changing sources). I fixed them now and just put new source. Here is problem which needs to be discussed: 1 source says that its Georgian, other says its Armenian. We need to find out which is true and if we cant, jsut leave like not writing origin like article looks like now. Do you understand me now? What did you gave reason of reporting me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obitauri (talk • contribs) 12:01, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

This was not about sources, but about edit warring. I warned you that I would report you if you would edit along the same line again, so I did. Note that your source http://books.google.ru/books?id=3PM_FnWgPBAC&pg=PA51 talks about Georgian yogurt, from which you cannot infer that the thing originated in Georgia. See article talk page. - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at the history of editing articles, and discussion page. You'll know who started the war edits. Obitauri poor knowledge of the rules. It violates WP:CON and WP:EW. What he says is the original study WP:NOR--Lori-m (talk) 14:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Article fully protected three days by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Silent Key reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Energy Catalyzer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Silent Key (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: Silent Key has been reverted by different contributors, and asked per WP:BRD to discuss the matter.

In my split of the "reactions" section I did not add or remove any content. And the categorization was not arbitrary - it had a clear, logical basis. The problem concerning Featherstone has been debated ad nauseum on the talk page by others. My intention was not to remove criticism from the lede - I believe in Widom-Larsen Theory but I'm still skeptical of the E-cat and Hotcat as I'm not yet satisfied that wireless power transmission into the device has been ruled out. Silent Key (talk) 13:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

None of which is of any relevance to the fact that you chose to edit-war rather than discuss the issue on the talk page. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:50, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

On the one hand, I'll note that the first diff isn't technically a revert; it was, AFAICT, the first time that Silent Key (or anyone else) made or even suggested making that particular group of changes to the article. (Though there have been previous efforts by cold fusion proponents to remove criticism from the article's lede.) In other words, this isn't – quite – a bright-line four-revert violation of 3RR.

On the other hand, Silent Key made his change and then reverted it back in three consecutive times in a span of just eleven minutes, using only the default 'undo' edit summaries. (The editors who reverted Silent Key's moedifications all provided at least brief explanations of their rationale and/or invitations to discuss on the article talk page, with explicit reference to WP:BRD.) Even in the absence of a fourth revert, this is an unambiguous instance of edit warring.

It shouldn't be difficult, even for less-experienced or less-frequent editors, to realize that if they find themselves repeatedly mashing the 'undo' button without engaging in any discussion, they're approaching a situation in the wrong way. Silent Key is familiar with the article's talk page, having made a couple of edits to a discussion there less than two weeks ago. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:36, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Though not technically a 3RR violation, I have blocked Silent Key for edit warring and disruptive behaviour. ItsZippy 15:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Monterrosa reported by User:Lady Lotus (Result: )

Page

Seth MacFarlane (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Monterrosa (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 Jun 19 2013 6:13 PM to Jun 20 2013 12:20 AM
   1. Jun 19 2013 6:13 PM ""
   2. Jun 19 2013 7:20 PM "/* Filmography */"
   3. Jun 20 2013 12:20 AM ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Warning on users's talk page

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

First attempt to talk to this person about the use of rowspans

Monterrosa's response on my talk page

Comments:

Continues to revert and redo edits that are not constructive to the page, refuses to listen to MoS. This user has also been blocked FOUR other times for their disruptive and nonconstructive edits. Lady Lotus (talk) 14:21, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Can you please link to where rowspans are discussed in our MoS or accessibility guidelines? I'm not taking a position on the issue, but I'd like to see proof that Monterrosa is violating consensus and that this isn't just a disagreement between you two. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:30, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Monterrosa has just returned to Misplaced Pages after a one-month block. They have engaged in a multi-day edit war at Seth MacFarlane over rowspans and the itemization of voice parts. They have not discussed the issue at Talk:Seth MacFarlane and do not seem to listen to anyone. I've left a warning of a possible indefinite block. I hope that other admins will allow this report to stay open a little longer to see if Monterrosa will respond. EdJohnston (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Chelsea-fan1 reported by User:The Madras (Result: )

Page: Didier Drogba (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Chelsea-fan1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560412638

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560782727
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560782981
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560783184
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Didier_Drogba&oldid=560783320

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Chelsea-fan1&oldid=560787175

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Chelsea-fan1&oldid=560782739

Comments:
I've tried to explain to him that the current infobox picture shows his face a lot more clearly, which is the point of the infobox picture, but he has not listened, and bothered to reply to me. The Madras (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Comments:
The current picture is up-to-date and not 5 years old and shows him in a football kit just like the profiles from Lionel Messi, Cristiano Ronaldo, Xavi and Cesc Fàbregas. chelsea-fan1 (talk) 19:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Note: Each of you is close to 10RR on this article. Can you explain why admins shouldn't block both of you for violating 3RR? Consider making a suggestion of how to resolve this. Or, promise to stop reverting until consensus is reached. EdJohnston (talk) 16:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Yesitwasgenocide reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: 31 hours)

Page: 1984 anti-Sikh riots (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yesitwasgenocide (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:
(Non-administrator comment) IP 142.59.249.84 (blocked for editwar on same article) maybe a sock of the reported user.--Vigyani_talk 01:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. The edit warring is clear. Also clear is the uncollegial tone and the attempts at bullying. Especially troubling is the talk page behavior, where conversation is taking place, their proposal is rejected (the last "oppose" is timed at 21:55), and yet they revert again (at 23:55) with some petulant commentary on the talk page and in edit summaries. The name indicates to which extent this account has a single purpose, but for now the edit warring is enough for a block. Drmies (talk) 01:48, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Prisonermonkeys and User:Djflem reported by User:The359 (Result: )

Page: Port Imperial Street Circuit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Prisonermonkeys (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Djflem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the Djflem's reverts:

Diffs of Prisonermonkeys reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Port Imperial Street Circuit#Promotional runs

Comments:

Note that the information on promotional runs was initially added in March, but the rearranging of the article did not occur until later creating its own section. The blanking and reverting of the section is what I have listed here. Also, this is the second case of edit warring on the same article between the same two users, with a previous edit war ongoing from March to May over photos (example Prisonermonkey diff, example Djflem diff). Users were also warned about edit warring for the earlier fiasco. (diff) Typical editing style of both users is to revert the article while at the same time arguing their case on the talk page. The5₉ (Talk) 07:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

IP:166.147.69.10 reported by User:Maunus (Result: Semi)

Page: Nahua peoples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: /166.147.69.10 (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:

Obvious trolling to insert a photo that is both racist and probably a copyvio into multiple articles.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:20, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Please fix your report. The link to the user is malformed, the link to the article is wrong, you posted links to revisions and not diffs, and you left some of the report fields blank. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Done. And yes I realize I was editwarring too.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:16, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Result: Semi two weeks. Three different IPs, including two from the 166.147.* range are edit warring to put back an image that is probably a copyright violation. Once the copyright is settled a normal discussion can resume. EdJohnston (talk) 03:48, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Ittihadawi reported by User:ViperSnake151 (Result: )

Page

PlayStation 4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Jun 20 2013 5:24 AM "REVERTED"
2. Jun 20 2013 5:11 AM "Currency"
3. Jun 20 2013 5:04 AM "/* PlayStation Camera */ No need to mention price in Canadian Dollars."
4. Jun 20 2013 5:02 AM "/* Controllers */ No need to mention price of controller in Canadian Dollars (same as US Dollars). If price was mentioned in Canadian/Australian Dollars, why not mention price in other currencies such as the UAE Dirham or Omani Rial?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Jun 21 2013 9:19 AM "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on PlayStation 4. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Jun 21 2013 9:42 AM‎

Comments:

Disputes the disambiguation of pricing per MOS:CURRENCY; as he does not consider Australian or Canadian pricing to be notable, he constantly removes it, and then removes the USD marks because the article no longer, as a result, talks about any dollars other than American. I, and several others, dispute this because the PS4 is a world-centric article, and not U.S. centric. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Comment To be honest, you're acting like a little bitch again. Yes, that person did violate 3RR rules which is not cool and there was a lil' bit of edit warring BUT that user stopped doing this even BEFORE you made a warning on his/her "Talk Page" and before you immediatelly put a notice here or started a new discussion on article's talk page. In the end the current version of PlayStation 4 does NOT contain any 3rd-world country's (like CA or AU) prices anymore, just as this reported editor was trying to do (although a little bit too aggressively with removal of "US" bit... but he/she stopped). A simple "Talk Page" warning would've sufficed unless the editor would've continued his/her behavior. Not the first time you do this pre-emptive WP:ABF shit and unfortunately not the last...

Also, it appears that you have tried to use this edit warring to push your personal agenda against "price gouging in AU" or some other nonsense, as you have commented upon here and also in Edit Summary here. Quite an opportunistic piece of work you are... 173.68.110.16 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Li3939108 reported by User:Fearofreprisal (Result: )

Page: Ping Fu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Li3939108 (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:Editor appears to be one of the people involved in the cyber-bullying campaign against the subject of the article. This campaign has been ongoing for 5 months. User was recently warned for defamatory posting in this article

Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

1. You should notice the 4 edits are not the same. I add one source in one edits to respond to your request.
2. User:Fearofreprisal appear to be one of the people involved in the promotion of the memoir.--凡其_Fanchy 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, not. I mostly just try to keep the article from being turned into an attack page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Mrt3366 reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No Vio)

Page: 2002 Gujarat violence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mrt3366 (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:

Quite simply I am pissed off that this guy will not abide by policy, a tag ought to remain till such a time as the dispute is resolved, he reverts to his favoured version constantly and removes any tag added due to this. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: most of them, if not all, are far from reversals, let alone edit-warring. 24hours? Darkness Shines is pushing an agenda here. As his recent unblock condition he has accepted a voluntary restriction on reverting tags, that's the reason I think he is here. Check the history of the page. I can guarantee that my edits are good-faith contributions and I explained them in talk in detail. BUT DS feels if he thinks the page is non-neutral he can gut it unilaterally without any regard for the opinions of other involved editors. Mr T 18:37, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I could have added another few minor edits to this, the problem is you refusal to follow policy. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Do not remove my comment in the process of restoring your own which you know was removed mistakenly. Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive801#Why_is_this_guy_getting_unblocked_every_time_he_is_blocked_for_a_long_period_of_time.3F DS was supposed to be in blocked-state right now. Mr T 18:58, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• I'm seeing 4 separate edits and this isn't report worthy. I have more than had of you two guys knocking spots off each other. I'm going to leave you separate messages on your talk pages. Spartaz 19:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:82.212.85.176 reported by User:Doniago (Result: )

Page: Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.212.85.176 (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:

IP editor was advised that there was a pre-existing Talk page discussion; opted to continue reverting and accuse me of "abuse" despite reversions by at least one other editor. Possible WP:SPA. DonIago (talk) 19:36, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple IPs (same user) reported by User:Nstrauss (Result: Semi)

Page: PRISM (surveillance program) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported:

1. 79.21.93.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. 87.2.112.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. 95.236.41.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

(Same user seems to keep switching IP addresses, see here.)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: , , , ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:PRISM_(surveillance_program)#Google_backdoor.3F_WT.2A_.3F

Comments:

The user appears to be a newcomer and a non-native English speaker, but he/she seems to willfully refuse to learn and understand the policies and has a very strange sense of what consensus is, as evidenced by the talk page discussion and his/her user talk (87.2.112.110) --Nstrauss (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Another note, I have no reason to believe this person is sockpuppeting, but if he/she is going to be so disruptive from multiple IP addresses then it seems appropriate he/she should be required to create a login (and use it). --Nstrauss (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one week. The same person seems to be using multiple IPs to edit war on this article. The hopscotch on the talk page suggests that the IPs are the same person throughout. The IP made a promise to edit war about the original research: "i'm not removing that info, until YOU give me a valid reason for that info-removal." EdJohnston (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

User:Giorgi Balakhadze reported by User:Alaexis (Result: )

Page: Georgian–Armenian War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Giorgi Balakhadze (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. Revision as of 18:47, 18 June 2013
2. Revision as of 18:51, 18 June 2013
3. Revision as of 19:09, 18 June 2013
4. Revision as of 18:11, 19 June 2013

These constitute a violation of 3RR, there were two more reverts afterwards.

All the reverts consist in replacing a map with a new one, which has NPOV issues.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: , see further comments by User:Chipmunkdavis

Comments: Since User:Giorgi Balakhadze entered into discussion at the very time I was writing this I do not want him to be blocked but simply reminded of the spirit and letter of Misplaced Pages principles.

Alæxis_¿question? 22:18, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring