Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:57, 24 December 2009

• 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:Heqwm2 reported by User:Dr.enh (Result: stale)

Page: Heterosexism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Heqwm2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Removing a reference.

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

Refuses to disucss

These reverts are the same as Heqwm2's reverts before his/her last ban

except that Heqwm2 is now also deleting a reference.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

Dr.enh (talk) 07:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again, Dr.enh is engaging in edit warring while claiming to be the victim. He has absolutely refused to discuss the issues on the talk page. Despite me starting a section on the discussion page to discuss the issue, he repeatedly reverted my edits without responding. When I put an edit war warning on his talk page, he retaliated by putting one on my talk page. Just to be clear: the edit war warning that he put on my talk page was in response to reverts that I made after he gave ABSOLUTELY NO RESPONSE WHATSOEVER to the talk page section that I created to discuss the issue. He did finally give a "response" that did not address my points at all, and six minutes later (and without any intervening edits on my part) put the edit war warning on my page. He has repeatedly removed a {{fact}) tag without giving a valid reference. After removing the invalid reference once, I simply put in the tag. His statement "Heqwm2 is now also deleting a reference" is false. I am simply re-adding a tag that he insists on removing without giving a valid reference. Also, his labeling of the first diff a "revert" is dishonest. He reverted my edit, claiming that I needed a cite, so I made a new edit including a source (which he then reverted). My edit was not a revert.

Dr.enh has made it clear that he has no intention of editing with good faith, and I ask that he be blocked.Heqwm2 (talk) 22:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Warned. Closing as stale. Not worth protecting the article yet, but suggesting the editors seek outside input. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:HJ_Mitchell reported by 86.12.24.209 (talk) (Result: no vio)

• Three-revert rule violation on

Eleventh night (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). HJ_Mitchell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 19:34, 21 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 86.12.24.209 (talk) to last version by Ulster15rugby")
2. 19:43, 21 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 86.12.24.209 (talk) to last version by P Carn")
3. 19:55, 21 December 2009 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 86.12.24.209 (talk) to last version by HJ Mitchell")

—86.12.24.209 (talk) 20:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

A violation of 3RR occurs when more than three reverts are made, which haven't been made yet by HJ_Mitchell (though it still doesn't exclude the situation from being an edit war).

Also, just to point it out, 86.12.24.209 has violated the 3RR:

• 19:38, December 21, 2009
• 19:39, December 21, 2009
• 19:44, December 21, 2009
• 20:10, December 21, 2009

~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:17, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, so it's somewhat backward (and rather comical) that I should be reported by the violator! I've reverted edits that appear to be unconstructive while patrolling the recent changes. The IP editor has responded to warnings, made with an assumption of good faith (and later no faith assumption) with personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith. I informed him (assuming, sorry) that the simple use of an edit summary would solve the problem and was greeted with abuse. For context, at least one other editor has reverted seemingly unconstructive edits by this IP on the same article and issued the relevant level warning. I'm tempted to report 86.12.24.209 to WQA, though I haven't decided on that yet. HJMitchell You rang? 20:32, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Several changes are involved in that edit/revert. At least one of 86.12's changes was uncontroversially constructive: turning multiple duplicate refs into one ref with a refname thereafter invoked for later cites. Why was this change not left in place, rather than being repeatedly reverted? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 20:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Because the edit appeared to be vandalism. It was a sizeable removal of content with no explanation in any of the edit summaries or personal attacks and it was flagged up by an abuse filter. I checked the history, 86.12.24.209 is not a regular contributor to the article and so I reverted and issues a {{uw-delete1}} which makes an assumption of good faith and suggests the use of an edit summary if the change was constructive (as opposed to issuing {{uw-vandal1}} which appears to assume bad faith). Instead of removing the warning, re-doing the change and noting the mistake in an edit summary, 86.12.24.209 met it with confrontation but that's a matter for another noticeboard. HJMitchell You rang? 21:09, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell clearly meant well, but that does not excuse either party from reverting each other's edits with a nonconstructive result. In terms of edit warring alone, neither anon. user and HJ are excused from edit warring. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

For an IP user to edit without a summary does not, in itself, constitute "vandalism". Your own edit summaries "Reverted edits by... to last version by..." state what you did but not why. "Removing" content, by combining multiple duplicate refs into one ref-with-refname, does not in fact remove any information; it only reduces needless repetition of the same information. There seems to be a need to study WP:Vandalism#What is not vandalism; note that "Failing to use the edit summary" is not vandalism. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 21:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I am well aware of what is and is not vandalism. I'm an experienced rollbacker and recent changes patroller. As for my own edit summaries, they are automatically generated by the rollback feature. Look at this from my perspective:

• I know nothing about the article or its history and, while patrolling recent changes, I come across an IP who had never edited the article before and appeared (we can thrash that out in another venue if you really want) to be removing a large amount of text from an article, triggering an abuse filter. Now, if you were in my position, you wouldn't think that suspect at least?
• Further to my reversion, I left a warning on the IP's talk page which explained, in a way that assumes good faith, about removal of content not vandalism.
• You can imagine my surprise to find that, within minutes, another editor has reverted exactly the same edit and issued the next level warning
• You can imagine my further surprise to find myself being called an "officious bureaucrat" on my talk page by said IP and to see said IP reverting the second reverter without attempting to engage either in discussion or explanation in the edit summary despite the condescending comments which show he knows how to use it.
• I made another 2 reverts (taking me up to 3), each time explaining very clearly on his talk page why I reverted to be met with a report here only for the IP to revert me again, thus taking his total to 4- a violation of 3RR.

However, the edit war that he started, in which he violated the 3RR and in which he made the last revert but only after reporting me for doing what he was about to do is not the issue. If he had simply gone with a "undid revision by HJ Mitchell.... I'm replacing a duplicate ref with a refname" or some such, I would have left it but reverting and reverting that fast only reinforced my conception that it was vandalism. It has since been pointed out to me that the edit was constructive and I apologise unreservedly for my misconception. However, I hope 86.12.24.209 can take from this that people don't issue warnings about removal of content or vandalism lightly an that the attitude he displayed in reverting and attacking those reverting seemingly unconstructive edits is not the way to go.

Now will someone please close this so I can get on with building the encyclopaedia. HJMitchell You rang? 23:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a note to SuperHamster: I'm sure everyone knows that the number of reverts isn't particularly adhered to, on either side of the figure three - it seems instead to be judged usually by a closing admin. I do appreciate though, that you recognise this in your bracketed remark. Also, by publishing this report, obviously I am not trying to hide the fact that I made reverts myself. Any and all interested or involved parties can and will clearly see the edit history of the article and will notice my own reverts. However, in making this report I am representing myself.

I would like to point out to HJ Mitchell that I have not violated anything.. apart from 3RR, which wouldn't have occurred had you used common sense with regard to the issue. You attempt to point out that it is "backward and comical" that I should report you based simply on the number of reverts made by each party. "Oh he did it more than me, so he's the more guilty". The fact is that the person adding the initial information is ALWAYS the loser when it comes to this numbers game. I have witnessed people gaming the system in this way. As an aside - I am NOT suggesting you are trying to game the system here. However, my point remains.

While you may think it comical, I have a similar opinion with regard to your actions relating to the article itself: you saw it having been tagged by a bot, presumably noticed a difference in the size of the article, and assumed I had indulged in some vandalism, as you admit. I have never given a warning template to another editor of Misplaced Pages based solely on assumption, that I can remember. I certainly haven't done it repeatedly with the same edit. If I see something I think might be amiss, I do a little investigation: "maybe there's a logical reason behind this apparently strange edit". I don't mind wasting my own time, but I hate others wasting my time.. and I try to consider other editors in respect of that.

The other editor did indeed revert my edit shortly after you had, and I had reverted the article back. I included an edit summary advising you (and the other editor) of the situation. While that summary may have been trite, there is a limited space available and I was quite incredulous at having been reverted in the first place, for no good reason other than that you took the word of a bot. All this does really, is show the limitations of an over-abundance of over enthusiastic bureaucracy and the limitations of a bot (which is probably, otherwise, a perfectly well written and useful bot).

As for alleged personal attacks and assumption of bad faith, let me remind you that your tone was rather patronising, as well as not assuming good faith. Protocol, or guidelines, suggest that at that point I should report you, rather than continue in dialogue with you. However, I didn't think it was necessary to bother anyone else. I had actually assumed you would see sense. I can't actually see that I have made any personal attacks. I believe I merely made statements of fact, albeit rather bluntly. I did employ sarcasm, truth be told, when I said "have a nice day", of course. Nor can I see where I have not assumed good faith - I basically hit your problem on the head like the proverbial nail. I explained as much in my edit summary after your revert (in which there was no edit summary either, by the way.. although you did leave a nice 'warning' on the talk page of this IP).

Now, possibly because you won't admit your error in judgement or lack of pre-investigation, you are considering opening up yet another report, based on etiquette apparently. Sizzle Flambé was right when they suggested you threw the baby out with the bathwater and now, to add in another metaphor, you are considering throwing good money after bad - wasting more of both your time and my time.

There is far too much of this crap on Misplaced Pages, which means that hard work seldom gets done. It is one of the principle reasons I am no longer a regular contributor. Well, good luck if you do decide to make a case for bad etiquette. Who knows - I might even show up for comment.

Let me try to end this on a more positive note: I know you probably meant well HJ, but you .. messed up. I'd like to try to be fair and attempt to share some of the blame with you but, really, all I tried to do was improve an article at the end of the day. I guess that'll teach me, huh? --86.12.24.209 (talk) 23:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I see I have been writing while another response has been made. Firstly, I resent the accusation that I am male. Let's go into list format for the remainder of my responses:

• You might need to brush up on what is and what is not vandalism, because you clearly got it wrong on this occasion.
• My edit summaries, with my reverts, were also automatically generated, yet I managed to include - at your request, I believe - an additional manual input.
• "I know nothing about the article or its history" .. perhaps this points out another flaw of Misplaced Pages, frankly.
• I did indeed remove an amount of unnecessary text from the article. However - and this is where you and I apparently differ - what I would do is check the article itself for actual vandalism, instead of merely suspected vandalism. Then, if nothing was clear to me, I would have performed an edit history comparison: "compare selected revisions".
• Officious bureaucrat may not be the most flattering way to describe someone, but I feel it was apt.
• My first comment to you was in the edit summary, and clearly defined your problem: "stop listening to bots! No information was removed - info was ADDED!" I don't quite understand why you didn't accept what I had said at that point. It was at exactly this point that I believed you had initiated an edit war, by the way. However, I didn't report you then because I thought a clearer message on your talk page might end the dispute.
• That you made only a third revert, and I made four, is due to the fact that another editor made the same mistake you had.
• As far as "people don't issue warnings about removal of content or vandalism lightly" goes.. let me remind you that people don't necessarily give up their spare time to edit this encyclopaedia lightly. You are not the only one who is building an encyclopaedia.
• I accept your apology and echo your sentiment regarding moving on.

--86.12.24.209 (talk) 00:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll take most of that as fair comment. Now, I'd much rather be editing in the mainspace than project space so can we agree to disagree and get back to what we're really here for? HJMitchell You rang? 02:21, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

No violation No action needed at this time. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Truth Transparency reported by User:Off2riorob (Result: indef)

Page: Leib Tropper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Truth Transparency (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Here is the diff of where I offered him the opportunity to revert his edit.

Comments:

User been repeatedly reinserting a link that other users have removed as unreliable. These edit are all since this afternoon. Off2riorob (talk) 22:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked for twenty four hours for repeatedly adding the same content on the 18th of this month. Off2riorob (talk) 22:29, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

User:98.240.184.20 reported by User:Kuyabribri (Result: stale)

Page: 2009 American League Division Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 98.240.184.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: (reflects 4 consecutive edits by 98.240.184.20)
• 2nd revert: (reflects 3 consecutive edits by 98.240.184.20)
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

98.240.184.20 has made several other similar edits to this page as evidenced in his/her contribution history since 15 October 2009. The most recent have been and .

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (reflects my last contribution to the talk page)

Comments:
At issue here is the wording of a controversial baseball call. Felyza (talk · contribs) gave 98.240.184.20 an opportunity to explain his/her position on the article talk page, and consensus went against him/her. He/she has continued to make the same or similar edits against consensus and despite the edit warring warning linked above. KuyaBriBri 21:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The disputed content is about some what-if's. It had been re-worded several times to make it sound more neutral. I think some proper terms, such as "claim", "speculation", etc. should be kept to remind readers the predictive meanings. The dispute resolution process was held in the talk page but 98.240.184.20 just refused to follow.--NullSpace (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• Stale IP engaging in original research. Semiprotection probably not necessary at this time, but please come back if they do. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:24, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:78.32.143.113 reported by Letdorf (talk) (Result: no vio)

Page: Volkswagen Group (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: 78.32.143.113 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Persistent edit warring regarding nomenclature used to refer to Volkswagen Group and Volkswagen AG.

Previous version reverted to:

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

1. 19:37, 6 December 2009 (edit summary: "rv editorial opinion")
2. 15:37, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 331615769 by Letdorf (talk) the English language name is "Volkswagen Group"")
3. 19:33, 15 December 2009 (edit summary: "fixed redirects, tweaks, clarity, corrections, "Volkswagen Group" and "Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft" are an identical company, re-inserted previous vandalism to remove official acronyms")
4. 11:07, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "MOS compliance for abbreviations, rv editorial opinion")
5. 21:33, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 333354586 by Gr1st (talk) it IS an editorial opinion - otherwise cite your source!")

Also reverting what appear to be good faith edits, claiming "possible vandalism":

1. 10:59, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332571237 by 118.92.113.82 (talk) possible vandalism - blanked section")
2. 11:01, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 332570573 by 118.92.113.82 (talk) possible vandalism")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

The user at this IP address has a history of engaging in edit warring in various articles including ETKA (history), List of Volkswagen Group factories (history - 6 reverts in total, plus unwarranted accusations of sockpuppetry and vandalism) and Unit Injector (history). In addition the user has already received a warning from an Administrator about edit warring and was reported by another user on WP:RFAR (although that was not an appropriate action at that time).

—Letdorf (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Erm, I WILL reply to this in good time - but I MUST immediately raise the issue that Letdorf has blatantly LIED in this citation - not to mention the numerous personal attacks he places on my own talk page! 78.32.143.113 (talk) 22:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. IP is a long term good faith contributor. Problem should be amenable to discussion at the talkpage, which has the attention of all involved editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Lanternix reported by User:Tiamut (Result: No block)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

In each of the diffs presented, Lanternix removes the listing of Egypt and its Christian population.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , though Lanternix is well aware of what 3RR is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk page section I opened to deal with the reverting

Please note that Lanternix has been edit-warring at Arab Christian over the same content for over a year now (sample diffs from October 2008: , , , ). It is very difficult to reason with this editor given their refusal to entertain POVs oither than their own and their tendency to edit-war to impose their POV. I have left many an article out of fear of being dragged into an edit war and was dragged into one here (I reverted twice myself). I stopped though when I noticed what was happening. When an IP added similar information and Lanternix deleted it again, I warned him/her to give a chance for self-reversion. With none forthcoming, an with this message on my talk page noting s/he will not self-revert, I decided to file this report. Tiamut 22:33, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments:

• Declined Self-reverted, so letting this go. -- tariqabjotu 03:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tiamut reported by User:Lanternix (Result: No violation)

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

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

In each of the diffs presented, Tiamut insists on including Egyptian Copts in the article, in spite of the various references I provided him/her with, which state that Egyptian Copts are not Arabs. I even tried to reach a compromise with the user by finding a middle ground and renaming the article "Arabic-speaking Christians" or "Middle Eastern Christians", but the user has declined this offer. There are also IP addresses involved in reverting my edits (IP 86.108.40.104 and IP 84.109.85.121), and I am hereby requesting an investigation as to the relationship between the user Tiamut and these IP addresses. I had already reached a compromise on the issue during the previous year here and again here, but user Tiamut was not content in spite of the efforts made by everyone else to find a middle ground, and thus the article was reverted back to be called Arab Christians, which did not initially include the Egyptians. I have no problem with finding a compromise, as long as it actually agrees with history and with the self-determined identity of the Copts as Egyptians and not Arabs.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , though Tiamut is well aware of what 3RR is.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page by reaching a compromise and a middle ground for the dispute:

Comments:

I don't know if you've actually read WP:3RR, but it takes more than three reversions to be in violation.

If you want somebody to check whether Tiamut is related to those IPs, the appropriate page is Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations. — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 23:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you've actually read the tile of this page, but it is not just about 3RR, but about edit warring, and the first line says "Use this noticeboard to report recent violations of the three-revert rule, and active edit warriors."

I see. In that case, I will undo my own reverts on Arab Christians then. Thanks for the help. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ 23:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

When you go to WP:3RR, you will see it clearly syays "any user may report warring behaviors rather than retaliate, whether or not 3RR has been breached." It takes some nerve to report an editor for 4 reversions, when you have made 3 reversions on the same page. Both should be blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.54.125.181 (talk) 23:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

If you review the page history, you would see that Tiamut made two reversions on the page. The fact that Lanternix includes her first edit to the page as a reversion doesn't make it so. She acknowledged above that she reverted twice. Maybe she's been engaged in edit-warring and maybe she hasn't, but she hasn't committed a 3RR violation whereas Lanternix had (until Lanternix agreed to undo the last reversion). — Malik Shabazz /_Stalk 00:06, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the page history, unlike you, apparently. The first diff listed by Lanternix is a clear revert of this edit. She made 3 reverts he made 4. technicalities aside, they are both edit warring and need to be treated the same. 12.54.125.181 (talk) 00:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This is pathetic! What exactly makes of Tiamut's first rv not an rv?!!!! Tiamut clearly clicked the "undo" button as she was doing so! Isn't that a reversion?! Some objectivity here please. --Ⲗⲁⲛⲧⲉⲣⲛⲓⲝ 00:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

3RR is not designed to punish people trying to add new information to an article. When I first added the information that was the first new version of the page in that format. When I undid Lanternix's deletion of that addition, twice, I made two reversions to that previous version. That is why we are asked to append a previous version to which the article is being reverted.

I'm not sure who the anon IP is, but considering Lanternix's history of sockpuppeting, I would be skeptical that it is disinterested party. Tiamut 00:16, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Id say its 5-1 that it is the artist formerly known as NoCal100 nableezy - 00:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

That was my second guess. Isarig (NoCal100 before he vanished) used to love to bring me to these boards. Back in 2007, he got me blocked three times. I'm sure he would love to see it happen again here. Tiamut 00:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

you've already been blocked three times for edit warring and you are here again, edit warring? how long of a block does this need to be in order for you to get the message? Lovely day350 (talk) 01:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation I haven't the slightest idea what violation you're talking about. -- tariqabjotu 03:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

User:WesleyDodds reported by User:Ibaranoff24 (Result: no vio)

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:

User has been warned about edit-warring and pushing his own opinion upon this article, despite the number of sources contradicting the addition of a single band name in association with a genre that this band has been significantly sourced to not be a part of. He claims that the removal of the band name "changes the meaning of what the source says", despite the fact that no other part of the sentence has been changed, and the addition of a band that is not a part of the subgenre claimed by the source doesn't add anything significant to this article. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 00:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Recommend filing a RFC rather than continuing a slow motion edit war. Protection seems overkill at this stage, but should be considered if disruption continues. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I want to point out that Ibaranoff is editing cited material, even though I have pointed out that that's what the ref listed says. My edits are based on what the citation says. He did not assume good faith and immediately accused me of pushing an opinion in his first message to me. Personally I have no vested interest in System of a Down and its relation to nu metal; rather, I'm concerned with accurately representing a citation that was added during a massive rewrite of the article during its Featured Article Review. Furthermore, editing this one sentence is his only current contribution to the article. I don't plan to push this, but I wish Ibaranoff was open to discussion first instead of accusing me (incorrectly) of violating 3RR. WesleyDodds (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment My edits did not change the meaning of the text. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 09:36, 23 December 2009 (UTC))

User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Kralizec! (Result: 24 h)

Page: North American Union (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: - does not have the sourced and cited quote

• 1st revert: - first removal of the quote, calling it "POV pushing"
• 2nd revert: - second removal
• 3rd revert: - third removal, now calling it a "poorly-written sentence"
• 4th revert: - fourth removal

Text being being edit-warred over:

It was described by the leaders as being a dialog, not an agreement nor a treaty and that the SPP "does not seek to rewrite or renegotiate NAFTA. It creates no NAFTA-plus legal status."<ref name="spp faq"/>

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see the 40k of discussion at Talk:North American Union#Devil's changes

Comments:

While not the speediest edit war on record, The Devil's Advocate has been persistently removing the same sentence that does not fit his personal world view, regardless of the fact that three other editors have told him that the content in question is properly sourced and cited. While the extensive, four-person discussion on the talk page verges well into tl;dr territory, after two weeks of discussion on this issue The Devil's Advocate continues to revert the article back to the version he likes without the quote. Since Orangemike and I are obviously involved in this dispute, I am requesting that an un-involved admin investigate. Thanks, — Kralizec! (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Kralizec's report. The Advocate is quite convinced that the above-quoted sentence is intended to mislead, and therefore should not be in the article, because he knows that the quoted sentence is misleading, and the rest of us are just trying to cover up The Truth™. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours. Please be generous in reviewing any unblock request. Edit warring and IDIDNTHEARTHAT are unproductive, but there are clearly other aspects to this editor's contributions. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:FleetCommand reported by Hm2k (talk) (Result: warned; reporter blocked 24 h)

• Three-revert rule violation on

List_of_ISO_image_software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). FleetCommand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

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

1. 13:26, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "AfD: Nominated for deletion; see Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/List of ISO image software")
2. 18:38, 22 December 2009 (edit summary: "Removed duplication information; The fact that article survived deletion does not mean that it should become Content Fork in the same article")
3. 04:47, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 333396933 by Hm2k (talk)")
4. 04:50, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "Removed one self-link")
5. 04:55, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "Unmerging article....")
6. 05:25, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "Renominated for deletion")
7. 10:53, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "It's "Bold" not "impertinent", "disruptive" and "deceiving"")
8. 16:58, 23 December 2009 (edit summary: "Undid revision 333563779 by Hm2k (talk) AFD for destination page still pending... Unmerged...")

• Diff of warning: here

—Hm2k (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Also at: Comparison_of_ISO_image_software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) --Hm2k (talk) 20:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked Reporting user was disrupting an AfD by merging unilaterally; blocked. FleetCommand advised to seek outside input in similar situations in the future. - 2/0 (cont.) 02:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tadija reported by User:NguyenneyugN (Result: Blocked for 1 week)

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

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

Comments:Tadija was put on indefinite 1RR on all Kosovo-related articles a few days ago. This is a clear violation. Action should be taken, as this user is not trying to cooperate with anyone. Here you can see the sanctions put on him

• Blocked – for a period of 1 week Willking1979 (talk) 00:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

NguyenneyugN is blocked indef as a sock of User:Sarandioti, a highly disruptive user. - Tadija (talk) 10:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Thegoodlocust reported by User:Viriditas (Result: )

Page: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Thegoodlocust (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 08:55, 23 December 2009

• 1st revert: 20:41, 23 December 2009
• 2nd revert: 22:38, 23 December 2009
• 3rd revert: 23:04, 23 December 2009
• 4th revert: 23:32, 23 December 2009

Diffs of reliable source warnings on user talk page:

Diff of personal attack warming on user talk page:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments

User:Thegoodlocust was bold and added a new section to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change article at 08:55, 23 December 2009 He was reverted by User:Scjessey at 20:25, 23 December 2009 with Scjessey noting a "non-neutral addition that cites blogs, etc.." Thegoodlocust did not follow WP:BRD and returned to add the disputed material again with a revert at 20:41, 23 December 2009, with the edit summary, "Not a blog Scjessey and an easily confirmed error." At this point, I arrived to take a look at the sources and the material. I found what appeared to be intentional deception on the part of Thegoodlocust, including original research and synthesis, all being advanced with the use of an unpublished, personal blog. The rest of the sources are primary, and say nothing about the disputed content. They are essentially being used in a deceptive manner. I removed the material as a gross violation of NPOV, OR, and RS, while I endured several personal attacks on my talk page and in edit summaries from the user. Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

TGL has left a message on my talk page explaining the situation here. It appears that he had hit undo to retrieve some of his old text and somehow saved the page. Please take this into consideration. Perhaps a pledge on his part of restrain himself on that article for a suitable time might suffice. I suggested that in the future he could simply self-revert in this type of a situation. The offending material has already been reverted so there is no particular emergency here. --GoRight (talk) 00:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what GoRight says, however, my concern is that User:Thegoodlocust edit warred not only to advance the ideas in the unpublished, personal blog, but he did so knowing that the author of the blog, a man named John Nielsen-Gammon, is attacking the reliability of the IPCC report for using a report by the World Wildlife Fund which was not peer-reviewed. In the height of irony, Gammon uses his personal blog, which clearly states at the top that it is not under any editorial control, to engage in original research about the IPCC and the WWF! Thegoodlocust then uses the personal blog to get under the radar of the OR policy. I find this very deceptive. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Looking at the timestamp on the message he left on my talk page, it was left at 23:13, 23 December 2009 but the fourth revert appears to have been done at 23:32, 23 December 2009 so I don't know what to make of that. Perhaps he is confused about how things work when you hit undue? I don't know but I have conveyed his message per his request. At this point I will leave it to the reviewing administrators to decide how best to proceed.

The issues raised by V above are probably best dealt with as part of the content dispute on the article itself. --GoRight (talk) 00:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we all agree that he broke the 3RR with four reverts, but if you can get him to acknowledge here that he will use the talk page to propose and discuss his ideas in the future, I would ask the reviewing administrator to take this into account and consider closing this report without a block. I'm looking for some acknowledgment that he's going to change the way he's doing things. He's clearly a smart kid, but he needs to put it to good use. Trying to undercut NPOV and OR with edit warring isn't the way to do it. And GoRight? This isn't a content dispute. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The 3RR is obviously not a content dispute, but the rest of that bit about Gammon and WWF and such seems like it to me. Anyway, I don't wish to debate the point here. Suffice it to say that I have given him some advice on his talk page and directed him here. The rest is up to him. --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

One final point of clarification. He was initially using a blog entry but has subsequently switched to a BBC article that IS a RS. --GoRight (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

There's been a lot of edit warring going on there (not just User:Thegoodlocust) so I've asked for full protection to encourage all parties to discuss. --TS 01:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Setting content aside for the moment, multiple parties have engaged in the edit war rather than discussing, so the least draconian solution would be to protect the article and perhaps caution all sides against edit warring rather than to start issuing blocks. Page protection ought to be brief because this article regards a current event and is getting about 1,000 page views daily. (I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of that traffic is the edit warriors themselves). - Wikidemon (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think calling the article on the IPCC an "article a current event" is a bit much. We can afford to spend a bit of time out to get this right. --TS 01:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's shorthand to mean that the article is getting increased traffic from people who are trying to understand an unfolding event that is in the news. If you look at the long-term trends it looks like traffic is up about 50-80% this month over past months, which is significant but not earth-shaking. The proposed content is argumentative and adversarial on the face of it, but not so much so that a neutral admin is likely to remove it over page protection. I would argue that leaving it up as the "wrong version" for the duration of a longish (say 2-week) block will subject many thousands of people to bad content that does a disservice to the reader and reflects poorly on Misplaced Pages. However, given the choice between blocking editors, leaving up bad content, intentionally protecting the "right version", or asking admins to enter a content dispute, I think that a shorter (3-5 days, so that those celebrating Christmas can have a break?) page protection is the lesser of all these evils. - Wikidemon (talk) 01:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you're saying. You're a bit of a wizard with that hit count gizmo, I notice. I don't think there's necessarily a "wrong version" here, just a question of balance and due weight. One paragraph of a WGII report seems to have been written from inferior sources and inadequately reviewed, but that's enough to have the Indian glaciologists scratching their heads. --TS 01:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted a couple times, took note of the reasons, and then changed the sources and rewrote the paragraphs to correspond with the changed source (of which I had three - the BBC, Science magazine, and a scientific report). The last two revisions, as you can see, are from my newer and better source, they reason given for removal was that the "blog" (written by an atmospheric scientist in a newspaper) was unacceptable, which I find to be quite a fascinating reason since "Real Climate," a blog that has been quoted hundreds of times in various global warming articles, and which has been contributed to by a wiki-user who continually promotes it, and whose authors have been demonstrated to have subverted the scientific process (among other things), is an acceptable source (a point I brought up to the reverter (who then deleted the comment)).

Fine, I don't expect rules to be applied consistently, and so I removed that source and replaced it with a BBC article. It was again reverted (several times), with the same excuse about my source(s), which could no longer apply - since the stated reason for deletion was no longer valid then I considered their reverts invalid - and so I changed them back (as per WP:IAR).

I guess it doesn't matter though, since, as I predicted, they've come up with a new excuse for deleting the paragraphs that I wrote. Cheers. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Unhappy with the situation, TGL has decided to post antagonistic comments on my talk page (diff, diff). I would happily support a block of this unproductive, antagonistic, agenda-driven "editor". -- Scjessey (talk) 02:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And saying you'd use a can of "RAID" on the "bugs" like me isn't antagonistic? I'm perfectly happy with those comments that I made - far less rude than your treatment of me, and the constant blanking (something I consider vandalism) of you and your friends. Apparently I got under your skin though - perhaps you should look at your own behavior instead of lashing out. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

What can I say? When insects are bothering me, I like to spray them with bug killer. You were bothering me, so I removed your antagonistic comment. It's not my fault if you don't like the metaphorical flair I used in the edit summary. Hopefully, some wise admin will see you for what you are and call in the exterminator to indef block you. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:02, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, hoping for a perma-ban - and all this started because I inserted some well-needed and well-sourced facts into an article. I aspire to be as civil as you and your cohorts. 03:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've issued a final warning on personal attacks and not assuming good faith on User talk:Thegoodlocust, in relation to three very hostile comments on the IPCC talk page. He has (just over a year ago now) had long blocks for personal attacks and the like, and more recently he was topic banned from articles related to Barack Obama for "clearly unable to interact with other users in good faith on Barack Obama related article." There is also a pattern of tendentious editing. I think we should ask him to be on his best behavior on this controversial issue. I think everybody should be on their best behavior. Remarks about RAID are also personal attacks. --TS 03:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Issue any warnings to Scjessey? No? Hmm.....TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

No warnings to me are necessary. I haven't edit warred, POV-pushed or baited other editors like you have been doing. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You caught me mid-edit. As far as I'm aware ScJessey does not have your history, but remarks about RAID are attacks. -TS 03:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh he doesn't? Well, since you are unaware then allow me to enlighten you - , , and several blocks which can be gathered by perusing his talk page. Of course,[REDACTED] culture does indeed have a bias and if you hold some views you are more likely to get blocked than if you hold other views - deny it if you like, but that's a fact. My "attacks" have been tame in comparison to their repeated vandalism, although, I guess I do take it a bit more personally than they do - I spend the time to write up a nice section to improve an article and they simply delete, destroy and report. I suppose their tactics are easier and more impersonal. TheGoodLocust (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

You may consider me enlightened. I see a history of personal attacks by ScJessey noted by arbcom and a topic ban for six months, an admonishment and a one-year editing restriction on Obama-related articles. The two other links you give seem to be to inconclusive discussions. Neither of you is any angel, and both of you know better.

It's never a good idea to refer to another user's good faith edit as vandalism, as you do above. Other editors have discussed their reasons for disagreeing with your edits at some length (eventually) on the relevant talk page. They're not trying to harm Misplaced Pages, indeed from their point of view it may appear that they are preventing harm to Misplaced Pages by removing inappropriate material. Please assume good faith. --TS 04:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Anyone can look at what I added, which, to give some context, was in the criticism section of the article. I used as neutral language as I could and relegated the harsher criticism to direct quotes from my various sources. There is no good reason to keep it out, but it does fit in the long-standing pattern of all global warming related articles on[REDACTED] - if it promotes AGW then it is in, but if it cast doubt then it stays out. Blanking is vandalism as defined by wikipedia. I changed the sources, and as I predicted, they came up with a new excuse to keep out my section - this obviously isn't about the rules - those, apparently, are just a means to an end. TheGoodLocust (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing content from Misplaced Pages is not the definition of vandalism.

You were unaware of the discussion on this content going on at the talk page of the article on the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report (AR4). Now you are aware of it. Please join that discussion, which pertains to part of the content of AR4. If it is considered to merit inclusion in that article, then you will have a stronger case for inclusion in the general article about IPCC. It seems unlikely to me that you can persuade editors to accept it in the general article if you have not persuaded them that it belongs in the AR4 article. Does that make sense? --TS 05:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

<outdent> Yes, that makes sense - I highly doubt it'll be included in that article though and if it is (by some miracle) then they will just say it doesn't need to be in the main article since it is in the satellite article. Have a good one - you were surprisingly fair. TheGoodLocust (talk) 06:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, more than 30 minutes after the above response from The GoodLocust, someone created a new account at 6:55, 24 December 2009 under the name User:Kekkian and reverted to a similar version by User:Thegoodlocust. Another SPA also showed up, this one created on December 20, by a certain User:Marknutley. I'm tempted to file an SPI, although the person using the Marknutley account appears to be covering their tracks so it might not turn up anything. Viriditas (talk) 11:38, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Mister Flash reported by Þjóðólfr (talk) (Result: page protected 1 week)

• WP:3RR violation on

Tin whistle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Mister Flash (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

• 14:10, 23 December 2009

• 17:04, 23 December 2009

• 17:06, 23 December 2009

• 17:08, 23 December 2009

• Diff of warning and Response:

I accept it takes two to edit war. In mitigation of my own actions I wish to Highlight MF's comment at User talk:HighKing#British Isles. Þjóðólfr (talk) 00:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen this, this is a fall over from editors going round multiple articles inserting what they think or desire an article t reflect as regards Ireland and the british, Mister Flash has done nothing worthy of a block, all he has done is resist the pov push. Off2riorob (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. Page locked for one week. Try talking about it at Talk:Tin whistle first, eh? Thank you for providing some perspective on this, Off2riob. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The problem is not the page Þjóðólfr (talk) 12:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Peppylemew reported by User:Enric_Naval (Result: )

Page: Bad Dude in Love (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
User being reported: Peppylemew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1. 16 November
2. 21 November
3. 25 november
4. 28 November
5. 2 December
6. 5 December
7. 7 December
8. 9 December
9. 10 December
10. 12 December
11. 15 December
12. 17 December
13. 18 December
14. 19 December
15. 21 December
16. 23 December

Page: End Times (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Similar reverts, just check the history from 12 November 2009 to 23 December 2009.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: none, user was told to post in a talk page in July, November and December and he hasn't done so.

Comments:

He has never explained his edits: no edit summaries, no comments left in any talk page, no replies to warnings in his talk page.Enric Naval (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring