Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:37, 29 August 2012

• 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:DanielUmel reported by User:Lothar von Richthofen (Result: )

Page: Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: DanielUmel (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 edit warring / 3RR warning: (see comments for earlier warnings)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: While this is not a cut-and-dry 3RR violation in 24 hours, it is clearly edit-warring. DanielUmel does not display a significant capacity to assume good faith and act in a collegial manner. Even when he brings up discussions on talkpages, he opens them with bad-faithed, accusatory headings and lashes out at anyone who disagrees with him in textbook WP:BATTLEGROUND fashion. Note the accusations of "vandalism" in all of the diffs presented above. He was blocked for 2 days earlier this month for sustained edit-warring, but clearly has not taken a clue from that at all, even after I reprimanded him not to do so. See also his behaviour at his own talkpage: reverts an edit-warring reminder and calls the editor who posted it a "troll" again again same thing but to a different user. While removing warnings &c. on one's own talkpage is permissible, the "troll" name-calling and the fact that all removals were of EW notices is telling. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:29, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

3RR rules is when someone make 4 reverts in 24 hours in the same page, not in 38 hours. If else, I can easily name 5 other person who did more revert than me on this page. I have not broken the 3RR rules, so the report is pointless and baseless. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:38, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You do not need to break 3RR in 24 hours to edit-war. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Your point still fail. My addition was completely sourced and was turned down simply by "I don't like it". I am not entitled to respect bad faith reverts and as I don't break the 3RR rules, all is fine. You are just upset that I called your revert vandalism, as it was deletion of sourced content and without any explanation. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread your posts, dammit. There was an unresolved discussion on the talkpage as to whether or not to include the content. Merely having sources is not a free pass. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I have engaged in a long discussion, but someone just tell that he does not like it because it hurt his feeling that one category has more item than another, I can't talk anymore. I have took time and numerous posts to resolve the issue. But talk don't work when you bring all the proofs, all the source, and someone resort to I don't like it. I have talked more than it was reasonable to do. --DanielUmel (talk) 17:48, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

10 messages, 14 days, and the person who initially had the objection admitted his mistake. I don't think a single editor can hold out for months against multiples sources.--DanielUmel (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thread. Your. Freakin'. Posts. Your "discussions" generally are laced with bad faith and condescending digs at other editors. Don't be surprised when you fail to reach your desired consensus when all you have to offer is vitriol. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 17:57, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

I am always discussing, as I have opened a lot of talks section on diverses page and I have not broken the 3RR rules. So I am not edit warring because I am always open to talk on the issue and as I do not break the 3RR rules. But there is a limit when the other person show pure bad faith in the talk page.--DanielUmel (talk) 18:00, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I have previously tried to warn this user about edit warning and nearly breaking the 3RR, and they just deleted it off their talk page and called me a troll. I have taken no part in edit war myself, and I mentioned in my warning that both sides were continuing it, not just DanielUmel, but they wouldn't really listen. To be honest I think everyone involved needs to take a step back and calm down, and come back with a level head. Jeancey (talk) 18:36, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - User:DanielUmel is still engaging in low intensity edit warring on the Battle of Aleppo article. He is totally ignoring talk page consensus and reliable sources. DanielUmel is a persistent problem user with only two modes; huge problem user and lesser problem user (the latter behaviour being only when he is the subject of a noticeboard incident like right now, this being the third such incident that I know of). Action needs to be taken. حرية (talk) 17:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Statesman1 reported by User:Dailycare (Result: Needs to go to WP:AE )

Page: Six-Day War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Statesman1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

User advised in 2009 to discuss on Talk rather than "continually reverting":

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Informed user of this report:

Comments:

This article is under 1RR, however this report isn't a 3RR or 1RR report as such, rather this involves general edit-warring behaviour.

This account has been sporadically active since 2009, this year largely in the article in question here. The issue involves the "Background" section of the article, which was discussed on the talkpage with an eye to making it shorter. User:Statesman1 has repeatedly (four times, see diffs above) inserted information in this section: 1) that a UN resolution was vetoed (i.e. not adopted), and 2) that Egypt prepared to perform (but did not perform) attacks in Israel. No sources have been provided to the effect that either event would have been key or central to the unfolding of the events leading into the Six-Day War. To the contrary, User:Statesman1 has removed from the section text stating that border provocations were actually done, which is identified in an academic source as an important factor in the deterioration of the situation toward war.

Therefore it seems very much that the motive in this edit-war is the pushing of an agenda, rather than an attempt to identify the most relevant material to include. As the editor has refused to engage in the Talkpage concerning this content, I feel that a sanction is in order, for example a block regarding the Six-Day War page only. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 12:56, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Declined I'm declining this solely for procedural reasons, and am not saying that there was or was not edit warring. Since this article is covered by WP:ARBPIA, this really should be handled as a request for arbitration enforcement. This is important because edit-warring in this area generally results in more serious consequences, needs to be understood in the context of other people's actions, and needs the eyes of admins with experience in the enforcement area. Apologies for making you go through another step, but if the report is valid, it's likely that stronger sanctions need to be placed than a short block, and a topic ban is really outside the remit of this board. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Dr. Vicodine reported by User:Mdann52 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Goal difference (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Dr. Vicodine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

This is a long- running edit war, so I'll only provide the most recent diffs :-

• Revert by Gussss:
• Revert by Dr. Vicodine:
• Addition then reverted by Gussss:
• Then reverted to current version by Dr. Vicodine:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning -

• Gusssss -
• Dr. Vicodine -

Diff of attempt by users to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Comments:
No 3RR violation, but still a long-running edit war. At the time of writing, Dr.Vincodine is the only one to revert after warning. Mdann52 (talk) 19:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note. You neglected to notify Dr. Vicodine of this report; I've done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:52, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - I had trouble formatting it, and forgot completely *blush* Mdann52 (talk) 19:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that Dr. Vicodine has never edited the article talk page, and the edit war has been running for almost 2 months (started June 28). Pakaran 20:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Dr. Vicodine was advised by another admin to self-revert and discuss the content issue. I gave Dr. Vicodine some time to respond to that constructive advice, but, despite making three edits post-advice, he did nothing. Bbb23 (talk) 20:46, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Scientiom reported by User:Lionelt (Result:protected)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: changed "practicing homosexuals" to "LGBT people"; which is a revert of this
• 2nd revert: changed "practicing homosexuals" to "gays and lesbians"
• 3rd revert: added quotation marks to "practicing"; this is not a minor change: the scare quotes change the meaning of the word and represent a legitimate POV issue
• 4th revert: is a revert of which re-added the disputed "Demar/SPLC" item

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Demar/SPLC discussion

Comments:

Editor was blocked a couple of months ago for 48 hours for edit warring on Marriage. The subject relating to the 4th revert (Demar/SPLC) is currently the focus of a 2 day old edit war that had just subsided. The issue is currently under discussion and the revert was extremely poor judgment. The discussion is barely a day old! Why try to restart an edir war? Why not wait until consensus is reached?

I alerted Scientiom to the problem but they refused to do the right thing. I wrote on Scientiom's talk page: "You are at 4RR at American Vision. This is your lucky day. Editing has slowed down, and if you hurry back there, you might just be able to self-revert..." But unbelievably they did not take the chance to self-revert. Instead Scientiom responded "I'm at 1RR not 4RR." When it was pointed out that Scientiom was over 3RR at another article (YCRBYCHI) they personally attacked me writing "stop the lies." – Sir Lionel, EG 20:43, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Note. You neglected to notify Scientiom of this report; I have done so for you.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not going to defend Scientiom, but I'd like to suggest that you might want to look at the history of this article. The people reporting the edit warring are themselves quite guilty of edit-warring. You could block them all, or you could protect the page. I politely recommend the latter. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 05:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Wrong wrong wrong. I reported the the 4RR violation and I am not edit warring. You statement is completely erroneous. – Sir Lionel, EG 06:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I did say "people". You're not a people, you're just one person. There are a bunch of people -- many of whom are members of your WikiProject Conservatism and others who are followers or fellow travelers -- who are edit-warring. You're filing this on behalf of your people because your hands are cleaner, but their hands are not. This is a common pattern. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You are on very dangerous ground with these accusations, StillStanding. To say that Lionel is "filing this on behalf of his people" is an absurd claim that should be withdrawn immediately. StAnselm (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Which part is absurd? That you, ViriiK and some of the other people reverting against Scientiom are all associated with Lionel's project? That Lionel has a habit of doing the filing? That he's not at likely to revert as his people are? Which part of this is false? As far as I can tell, there's no policy against what Lionelt is doing, so I'm not accusing him of anything. I'm simply explaining what "people" means. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Now I'm a part of his project? News to me. Drop the accusation game now and retract your crap. ViriiK (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not part of his project either. StAnselm (talk) 06:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Another thing is, do you see me reverting any of Scientom's edits? Nope. ViriiK (talk) 06:45, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that many of the recent reverts were by Belchfire, who is an official member of WikiProject Conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Can anybody imagine the hue and cry if somebody were to make this same allegation against members of Wikiproject-LGBT? Belchfire-TALK 06:58, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, because WikiProject LGBT doesn't act anything like WikiProject Conservatism. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Don't play admin and decide they're edit-warring. It is pretty clear that Scientom is edit-warring but don't be passing recommendations to the admins here. They can decide for themselves on the appropriate steps to take. Meanwhile, you are basically accusing him of conducting a WP:BATTLEGROUND which is clearly not the case per the talk page of that article. ViriiK (talk) 06:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you don't need to be an admin to recognize edit-warring. I'm also pretty sure there's nothing wrong with asking admins to look for themselves and decide if they also recognize edit-warring. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am outraged and incensed at this unwarranted and unprovoked personal attack. I categorically deny this outrageous falsehood. I did not file this report on behalf of anyone. I did not coordinate my editing with anyone. I am not a meatpuppet. I have 30000 fucking edits. Why the fuck would I be a fucking meaqtpuppet????? I don't need to coordinate with anyone. I have been here 3 years. I know what the hell I am doing. – Sir Lionel, EG 06:38, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

This is crazy that we are all putting up with this bullshit. I just can't believe how many editors he does this to and NOONE does anything about it.' WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!?!?!?!?!? – Sir Lionel, EG 06:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I have 3 bronze stars 3 green plusses over a dozen DYKs and a page full of barnstars. I always edit my own pages when I want to edit them and noone ever tells me what to do ever. I do not need anyone to HELP ME or DIRECT ME to edit ANYTHING.– Sir Lionel, EG 06:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I am "not likely to revert" because unlike you I HAVE A CLEAN BLOCK RECORD and I do not edit war.– Sir Lionel, EG 06:48, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What really pisses me off is that I had no intention of even filing this report. I literally pleaded with Sciention to SELF REVERT. But he foolishly chose NOT TO. I told him he was at 4RR. I told him he had time to self-revert. How is any of this my fault????? So chose not to self-revert. He had his chance. At the end of the day we're here to build an encyclopedia------NOT TO EDIT WAR. So he gets reported. Not my fault.– Sir Lionel, EG 06:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

There's no personal attack here. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You accuse me of filing a report for someone else IE MEATPUPPETRRY and you have the unmitigated gall to say "no personal attack"??????? All of these editors here just told you it is a personal attack and still have the audacity to write "no personal attack"? We have a serios serious problem here. You do not comprehend our policies. You do not know or do not care when you violate our policies. When you are told you are wrong you just don't care. – Sir Lionel, EG 07:05, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Scroll up to where I said, "As far as I can tell, there's no policy against what Lionelt is doing, so I'm not accusing him of anything." Clearly, I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

REALLY? REALLY? Do you think we are that stupid? Do you think that you can manipulates us so easily? ANYONE reading this thread will immediately see the personal attack when you wrote "You're filing this on behalf of your people". That is a personal attack!!!!!! We are not falling for this "you may think that this is an attack but in reality it is not a personal attack" bullshit. No. The fact that you are even trying to deny it is an insult to my intelligence and the intelligence of the entire community. Your behavior is deplorable and unacceptable. – Sir Lionel, EG 07:16, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I just looked up WP:MEAT, but I'm not sure how it applies. It doesn't say anything about filing. Instead, it talks about recruiting people to do things for you. I don't think anyone recruited you; why would I? Like I said, as far as I can tell, you have not violated any policy here. Therefore, saying I'm personally attacking you by claiming you violated a policy just doesn't make any sense. I'm sorry about your distress, but I assure you that nothing I said was intended as a personal attack or could be mistaken for one by an objective third party. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I've made a post directly on Lionel's talk page. I'd like to move any discussion of perceived insults off this edit-warring notification page, as it doesn't seem like the appropriate place. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 07:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) One problem with this article about an organization primarily based on religion, possibly not free from controversy, is that it is labelled on the talk page as being part of WikiProject Conservatism. Multiple senior administrators have pointed out in the past that labelling like that can cause problems: the appearance, possibly unintentional, of a project trying to watch over certain articles. In this case things are not helped by the fact that the discussion on the talk page and here seems to have become too emotionally charged and personalized. Mathsci (talk) 07:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What are you talking about??? Belchfire--a brand new member--has been there a few days, and I have what looks like 1 or 2 edits. How is that ownership? This paranoia about WPConservatism ownership is bizarre. We're not taking over Misplaced Pages Mathsci Scout's Honor.– Sir Lionel, EG 07:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussions concerning WikiProject Conservatism are a matter of record on wikipedia. Your wikifriend Anupam added the WikiProject banners on this particular article. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

What has led all of the conservatism team to the American Vision page? I'm not surprised to learn the edit warring is over the Southern Poverty Law Center either. The request seems a bit stale, I see no current edit warring. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You're right, it's been over 24 hours since the last time Scientiom edited this page. A block would be punitive. I'm not even sure that page protection would be in order, since there's productive editing going on right now. I'm StillStanding (24/7) (talk) 09:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think it was User:Insomesia's idea of starting a political RfC there.. I first edited the article in October 2011, and have had it on my watchlist for ages - but then, I'm not a member of the "team". StAnselm (talk) 09:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected, the edit warring here is pretty widespread, with multiple parties on both sides. No doubt the version I protected is WRONG. As there are concerns about reliable sources and BLP, I think it would be wise to consider heading for one or both of the relevant noticeboards. In any case, I would love to see us find a way to resolve this dispute through discussion. Then again, given that this year is divisible by four, maybe I would get better results trying to ride a flying pig through a snowball fight in hell. Anyone care to join me in that? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 11:29, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

You want those pigs saddled or bareback? —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:51, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD reported by User:88.104.16.200 (Result: Both parties warned)

Page: Gandhi (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: MarnetteD (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 edit warring / 3RR warning: (edit summary)

Comments:While adding some details/corrections to the article page, my edits were reverted by user: MarnetteD. S/he claimed to do this because the edits I made did not include sources. I responded and said I was in the midst of adding the details and then as I was starting to add the relevant sources, s/he reverted again without waiting. Despite the interference, I eventually added the sources, but s/he reverted my edits again claiming them to fail WP:VERIFIABLE, which is not true. Two of the sources I added were from a leading British newspaper (The Guardian), which included budget and release details for the film at the time of its release. Another source (The-Numbers.com) is similar to Box Office Mojo.com, but gave US release date information that was not already in the article (it was released on Wednesday December 8th 1982, not December 10th). Another source (in70mm.com) highlighted the fact that the film received a royal premiere in London, and a fourth source (Princess-Diana-Remembered.com) actually showed a press clipping and photographs of the London premiere itself, attended by Princess Diana in 1982. All of these sources support the information I added to the article and are all valid, and I informed user:MarnetteD accordingly. Assumingly s/he thinks that The Guardian newspaper cannot be used as a source because there is no direct online link to it, but WP:SOURCEACCESS and WP:OFFLINE state that sources do not need to be available online (although The Guardian archives are actually available online via proquest.com). I restored the details again stating this and giving a warning about edit warring to user:MarnetteD, but s/he simply reverted again (the 4th time), this time claiming that the sources I provided does not give the information I say it does (which is not true). My warning to him/her against edit warring was simply dismissed with flippancy.

Looking at the edit history before today, user:MarnetteD has shown considerable article ownership on this article for a long time, which is counterproductive towards Misplaced Pages's aims. Despite his/her claims, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the sources I have added to this article, and MarnetteD is simply edit warring to keep his/her preferred version of the article (which has an American emphasis for something that is not even an American film) intact. As 3RR has been broken, the user should be blocked for his/her behaviour. According to the block logs, the user has been guilty of similar behaviour in the past. 88.104.16.200 (talk) 07:40, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why haven't you used the talk page to discuss your edits? If we had more editors like MarnetteD reverting unsourced edits, Misplaced Pages would be a highly respected and reliable source, so I support her work. On the other hand, she should have also contributed to a discussion on the talk page. The fact is, MarneteD has been revering vandalism to this page for some time and your edits could be construed as vandalism since many sneaky vandals change content in a way that looks legit, but without sources turns out to be vandalism. So next time, add sources while you are editing, not after. And go to the talk page to discuss it. Viriditas (talk) 12:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why didn't MarnetteD use the talk page either since she's the one who had the problem with the material being added? I've just had a look at this, and IP 88.104.16.200 added valuable information and corrections to the article and backed them up with valid sources. At first it might have appeared that MarnetteD was simply reverting because no sources were added in the initial edits by IP. However, once the sources were added (and they are perfectly fine sources) then MarnetteD still reverted the page to her chosen version, for no good reason. She simply wiped out all of the work that the IP user had done, despite his edit summaries providing sufficient reason to include the sources. MarnetteD didn't want to make alterations or discuss it, she just reverted the whole lot, first claiming it to be unverifiable (which is wrong) and then claiming the sources didn't include the details given (which is also wrong because I just checked them). I have noticed in recent months that more and more non-admins are getting trigger happy with wikitools and making reverts here there and everywhere because they feel it gives them power. However, this appears to be nothing short of edit warring and MarnetteD has crossed the line by breaking 3RR. As the IP user says, she's done it before and been blocked for it. She should be held accountable this time too. MassassiUK (talk) 12:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I said, "On the other hand, she should have also contributed to a discussion on the talk page". Did you miss it? I think she was editing in good faith, and she was not edit warring in the traditional sense, but reverting to prevent perceived harm to the encyclopedia. Most of her edits to this article consist of reverting vandalism, and she was acting in that role. I don't see how a punitive block will help. We want her to continue reverting vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry but that is clearly not the case. Even after sources were added she continued to revert. It clearly wasn't in good faith and reverting adequately sourced details is vandalism. This is a clear case of edit warring and another punitive block will show her that this kind of behavior is still not acceptable. MassassiUK (talk) 13:09, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are wrong. Sources were added, yes, but they didn't support the content. The previous version was accurately sourced whereas the new version added by the IP was not. See for yourself: This could be viewed as vandalism. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The new sources do support the new details because I have accessed them all. The film's budget in British pounds sterling (which is relevant because Gandhi is a British film) is included in The Guardian's review of the film, the royal premiere date of Dec 2 1982 in London is also included in The Guardian's entertainment listings for that day as well as the 70mm.com source and the Princess Diana source. The Numbers.com makes it clear that the film was released in the US on Dec 8 1982 and gives its five day opening gross, as well as dates in which the film went from limited to wide distribution. All of this information is pertinent to the article and the sources the IP user added back it up. MarnetteD had no business reverting it. MassassiUK (talk) 13:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong again. Please scroll down to the changes indicated in the "Box office performance". To start with, the cited source added by the IP does not support the information he added, whereas the previous version ("box office mojo") does. In other words, MarnetteD was reverting what looks like vandalism. Please take a moment to correct your errors before you reply again. I fully support MarnetteD's edits and we need more vigilant editors like her. Viriditas (talk) 13:36, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid it is you who is wrong. I've got The Numbers.com source open right now and it gives all of the details you are claiming it doesn't in the article's Box Office Performance section, including the date it opened in the US (8 Dec 82), the film's final US gross ($52.7 million), the film's opening 5-day week gross ($181,583), the date it went into wide release and its first wide weekend gross (21 Jan 83, $2,324,871), and the details of its widest release after the Oscars in April. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that source so I would like you to explain how it is wrong. It seems to me you are obviously just supporting your pal here and trying to smokescreen the issue. MassassiUK (talk) 13:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're mistaken for a third time, and evidently you did not review the changes. The source does not support the material. The Numbers source does not say the film was "followed by a wider release in January 1983" as the IP claims in the "Release and reception" section. The interpretation of the wide release remains that of the IP's and contradicts established sources. There's nothing in the source about the "success at the Academy Awards" as that was added by the IP. It is also doubtful that the film opened on a Wednesday as the IP claims. We have good reason to believe that the film opened on Friday, December 10, 1982, and was widely released on Feb. 25 like most opening films. I can go on and on and on and on. The source doesn't say any of this stuff, the IP is making his own interpretations, and the claims and added source contradict the best sources on the subject. Not an improvement by any stretch of the imagination, and reverted appropriately. You're either a troll or blind. Viriditas (talk) 14:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Not all films open on a Friday and it is ludicrous to suggest they do. For example, none of the Star Wars films opened on a Friday. The Numbers page has a table that includes a complete list of the film's weekend grosses. The table shows that the film started off in only 4 theaters and remained in limited release until Jan 21 1983 when it was released in 350 theaters (its first wide release). The table then shows that on April 15 1983 (four days after the film's huge success at the 55th Academy Awards which took place on April 11 - AND the IP user included a wikilink to it) it went into its widest release of 825 theaters. It's all right there on the The Numbers page. Box Office Mojo is not a superior source to The Numbers. In fact, BOM's weekly chart data for this film isn't even complete, whereas The Numbers is. It's obvious that you are simply trying to swamp this issue, so if you have nothing constructive to add then get off this noticeboard. MassassiUK (talk) 14:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Warned, both parties. I really don't think anything is going to be gained here by handing out blocks. Both parties are to blame for the problem here, so I will post a note on each of their talk pages. The anon should not have continued to add the material after it was challenged, and moved the discussion to Talk. MarnetteD should have been more careful to educate and inform the user instead of creating an edit war situation. We don't hair-trigger revert people just because they're editing anonymously. Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:168.70.7.2 reported by User:Dbrodbeck (Result: 72 hours)

Page: Blizzard Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 168.70.7.2 (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:

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

Comments:
IP editor keeps adding material without RS and violating NPOV. In his/her edit summaries (s)he calls editors censors and accuses, without evidence, people of having a COI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

• Already blocked Blocked for 72 hours by Toddst1. Electric Catfish 16:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Soniarangel reported by User:Mr. Vernon (Result: Article protected)

Page: List of organizations designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center as hate groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soniarangel (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 edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

No comment on the edit warring per se, but I've protected the article for three days just for its stability. If this is resolved sooner, please unprotect. Thanks. GedUK  11:48, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Closing, since article is currently protected and additional sanctions would be punitive rather than preventative. MastCell  18:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Altetendekrabbe reported by User:Gun Powder Ma (Result: No 1RR vio; referred to unblocking admin re: violation of unblock conditions)

Page: Islam in Europe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Altetendekrabbe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

My initial edit:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Altetendekrabbe is under 1RR. No attempt at discussing his reverts was made on the article's talk page. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Those reverts are three days apart. Facts, not fiction (talk) 13:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I am not familiar with 1RRs. Does this mean Altetendekrabbe was allowed to do the revert even though he did not abide to the rest of his unblock agreement, namely to "use appropriate talk-pages, administrative noticeboards and seek outside help rather than getting into fights. " Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

See also this series of five reverts by A. at another article:

, , , ,

- Ankimai (talk) 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

comment this is the most ridiculous and spurious filing i have ever seen on this noticeboard. gunpowder and ankimai should get banned as wp:boomerang applies here. please also note that gunpowder is trying to add a "segregation"-section to the islam-in-europe-page. clearly, he has no intentions to contribute in a balanced way.-- altetendekrabbe  15:49, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Given that there are three days between the reverts, I'm not willing to block for them. I do think there's a serious concern that Altetendekrabbe isn't abiding by the second part of his unblock agreement, namely to use the talkpage and other dispute resolution appropriately rather than getting into fights. That's a bit outside the scope of this board, but I will refer the question to Bwilkins, the admin who unblocked Aletendenkrabbe, for additional input. MastCell  19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Mystichumwipe reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Article is subject to WP:ARBPIA remedies and is under WP:1RR.

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Ankh, I don't think you provided the right diffs - it just goes to the revision history. Anyway, here are the 3 diffs:

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

--Activism1234 19:00, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Clear 1RR violation; blocked for 24 hours. MastCell  19:08, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not as well-versed on general sanctions as I probably should be, and I'm not familiar with this particular user and their history, but it looks to me as if the user may have been improperly warned. They seem to have been editing in good faith, and first edited the article today. As far as I can tell from the user's talk page, they were only warned about the 1RR restriction four hours after their last edit, and a half hour before they were blocked, making it implausible that they would be able to self-revert. (Of course, I could be way off base here, as it's possible that they knew about the sanctions and chose to ignore them when editing this article.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:RightCowLeftCoast reported by User:MastCell (Result: 31h)

Page: You didn't build that (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: Revision as of 22:28, 26 August 2012

• 1st revert: 15:47, 27 August 2012
• 2nd revert: 22:13, 27 August 2012 (two consecutive edits; undoes this preceding edit)
• 3rd revert: 00:46, 28 August 2012 (undoes this preceding edit)
• 4th revert: 16:11, 28 August 2012 (undoes this preceding edit)
• 5th revert: 17:45, 28 August 2012 (partially undoes this preceding edit, undoes this preceding edit, restores "what they viewed as" language from here)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:RightCowLeftCoast#Edit warring

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See last several threads at Talk:You didn't build that

Comments:
There's a clear 3RR violation in reverts #2 through #5. I included revert #1 to show that there's also a pattern of additional reverts just barely outside the 24-hour time limit, per WP:EW (Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation). MastCell  19:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this. I am happy to defend myself here. I stand that my edits were not strait reversions, but some where substantial edits to the article. Others are tag teaming to advance a change that advocates the increased weight of some POVs over other POVs in violation of WP:NEU. Additionally, by doing so they are gaming the system to decrease the neutrality of the article. What should have occurred was WP:BRD, and if I am a party as well as others in engaging in edits that contradict others than they should be hauled to this noticeboard as well. Perhaps the best solution is to lock the present article, allow the discussions to occur, and reach a consensus as to how this article will be moving forward.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The first edit clearly neither added nor removed anything at all -- it appears to have been at most a "moving" of content within the same section of the same article while retaining all of the content and adding no content. The Misplaced Pages definition of reverts requires that something be added or deleted -- which is not the case for the "first revert" on which the entire complaint depends. In short -- tempest in a political teapot for this complaint. And the definition of revert says It can involve as little as one word which is the problem - zero words were changed. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Collect, you're completely incorrect. A revert is "any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part". There is no requirement that something be "added or deleted", and I'm not sure where you got that idea. The first edit reversed the action of the preceding editor, by rearranging the article and thus changing its emphasis. That's a revert - always has been, always will be. If you're not sure, please re-read policy. MastCell  19:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I am notifying relevant WikiProjects of this conversation, per WP:CANVASS#Appropriate notification.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

There are no "relevant WikiProjects" to notify of the fact that you've been reported here for edit-warring - that's an odd understanding of the purpose and scope of WikiProjects. And I guess part of me thinks it's odd that you notified WikiProject Conservatism but not, say, WikiProject Barack Obama, which is equally relevant to the article at hand but contains a potentially less sympathetic mix of editors. But whatever; the diffs speak for themselves. MastCell  21:31, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Blocked for 31h. Fairly straightforward report (apart from the notifying WikiProjects part, which is frankly bizarre). Black Kite (talk) 21:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Strike2216 reported by User:Bagumba (Result: No vio)

Page: List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Strike2216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 22:03, 18 August 2012‎
• 2nd revert: 02:58, 19 August 2012‎
• 3rd revert: 22:59, 19 August 2012‎
• 4th revert: 17:53, 26 August 2012‎

The reverts center around the constant un-bolding of the list entry for "Johnny Damon".

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 06:23, 20 August 2012‎

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 07:13, 16 August 2012‎

Comments:
The editor has made over 400 edits with 0 in the talk namespace. Preventative action is needed to make the user aware of the value of discussions.—Bagumba (talk) 20:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

• No violation The problem with slow moving edit wars (these diffs are across more than a week) is that even if a short block is issued, it makes little difference. I would suggest taking this to DRN? Or if the editor continues to revert without discussion, perhaps ask for the page to be protected until they engage. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

FYR:Protecting the page, recommended by a 3O editor who denied 3O, was recommended and later denied. Zepppep (talk) 00:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

User:‎Widescreen reported by User:CartoonDiablo (Result: Pages protected)

Page: Cognitive behavioral therapy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Psychoanalysis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Widescreen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link link

Comments:

• Page protected for both. Both of you are equally guilty of edit warring, and you would've been blocked along with Widescreen had I decided to go that route, Diablo. However, seeing as there's no 3RR violations, I've fully protected both pages in their current state instead as you're obviously unable to discuss your proposed changes without edit warring. I would strongly advise you both to take the next two days to continue to try to resolve this, as further edit warring of any kind will be grounds for a block. Swarm 05:37, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring