Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:56, 22 December 2011

• 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:Israelite1 reported by User:DePiep (Result:Declined)

Page: Israelis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Israelite1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

-DePiep (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Comment User has not broken 3RR yet, does seem a bit odd that a user has only made 4 edits and 3 of them are all reverts. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Those kind of edits are clearly covered by 1RR under WP:ARBPIA and the use of Joan Peters as a source doesn't suggest the editor belongs here at all. I've added 1RR/sanctions headers. Sean.hoyland - talk 11:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm curious, how does one know that an article is under 1RR restriction?, surely we can't just assume a new (or even an experienced) editor knows about WP:ARBPIA. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, just seen the warning on the talk page. Never seen that before, would be very easy to miss. GimliDotNet (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Declined but only because the warnings were put on the editor's talk page after their last edit. They now should be clear about the 1RR restriction and if they break it or take other actions which appear to be edit warring should then be blocked. Dougweller (talk) 15:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't get this. I did not refer to 1RR. I know is might be I/P related (and so ARBPIA), but I did not claim 1RR transgression. (The 1RR has only been notified after my notification here ). And all together: no 1RR was in scope (except for the accused user).

I am here for a 3RR. Factual: R1=10:36 (Dec 17), R2=04:44 (Dec18), R3=09:35 (Dec18). The user did 3 reverts withing 23h. All were show "undo" as by automate (btw User did mark all as "minor", which requires a personal action).

You could have killed me here for "not engaging in dispute solving".

Oh, and by the way: I posted here (1st time I guess), but I did not read that I was writing a request that could be "denied" (exactly what was denied?). Just wanted to note a 3RR user. -DePiep (talk)

3RR was not broken, since it takes four reverts in 24 hours to break the WP:3RR rule. The editor was forgiven for their 1RR violation but is warned not to repeat it. I have notified User:Israelite1 about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBPIA. EdJohnston (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Hm, so that's the way to read it. I learned 3RR-counting was a maximum, not a right (which is a good idea). IMO, the "just three" reverts looked suspicious enough to warrant a note here (new user, no es, no talking). Well, thanks anyway to take care. Consider matter closed. -DePiep (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

That's not what was said, and you know it. If you'd warned properly in the first place, a block might have occurred ...but right now it's simply punishment. After all, discussion is the intent of the entire thing (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It is what EdJohnston said .

New to me is, that a "warning" counts as a "discussion". I actually added the warning as was advised on this page in the Listing instructions (and in the preload) as part of the reporting here. Both BWilkins and the declining editor (!) think different.

Also in the Listing Instructions block, actually above it in red, is the main line on this page worth reading. As I did earlier.

If one wants to improve from what was said, one could revisit my note that the wording of this page & its reporting preload does not make sense logically.

Straight from WP:3RR I dare quoting: any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached. The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times.

Now what do I supposedly know? -DePiep (talk) 22:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

re BWilkins: To me, your reply is a non-AGF . I think I responded extensively and sincerely . I might expect a response, don't you think? -DePiep (talk) 20:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, never mind Bwilkins. While I was expecting a response on my first report here, and while you were contemplating your post here (without AGF, as I pointed out), the User I reported here got SPI'ed, CUéd, banned, recreated an account for the same edits, ranted my talkpage twice with libels before getting banned again. Now if I only had a AN-page where I could report such suspicious behaviour. This page is not working. I do have diffs, but since no one is interested, I will provide then by request. -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh sorry ... I thought this thread was um, over? I hadn't look at it until I politely suggested you re-read what was originally said. Now, please stop the tantrum and go back to what I always thought was your normal reasonable and respectable behaviour (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Feldon23 (Result:No violation )

Page: List of changes in Star Wars re-releases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AndyTheGrump (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
User has refused to discuss or engage any communication warning him that mass reversions are unacceptable and that the article content is acceptible on Misplaced Pages, despite numerous examples provided.

• 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. AndyTheGrump's last edit to this was a week ago, and the one before that 2 months ago. Editor bringing this seems to have a content dispute with him but that can probably be worked out on the talk page. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

This has got to be about the most ridiculous misuse of this noticeboard I've seen. Evidently, having failed to explain how an article consisting almost entirely of original research can be justified, Feldon23 prefers to resort to falsification. It is an outright lie that I have "refused to discuss or engage any communication", as the article talk page demonstrates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

It seems very odd that an account which hasn't been used in three years made this complaint. These accounts appear to be recently created/active who have made comments on the talk page: Special:Contributions/BridgeSpotter Special:Contributions/Feldon23 Special:Contributions/Syko_Conor Special:Contributions/Fernandosmission Special:Contributions/Stupendous_Man!. Is this grounds for a checkuser to be performed? IRWolfie- (talk) 17:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Feldon23 has apparently revived an inactive account solely for the purpose of making false assertions about 'vandalism' and violations of WP:3RR. You're right - the obvious question is whether he/she has been involved in the discussions under another account... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

feldon23 is an account I have used rarely on[REDACTED] but it is no less valid. I'd be happy to verify it by any means required. First, i have little interest in the article in question. I came upon it when someone linked me to it and i found it in the current dispicable state. So i headed to the Talk page to find that someone named AndyTheGrump who not only had no knowledge of the subject, and not only was advocating the speedy deletion of an article that had been built up over several years, but had REVERTED major parts of the article no less than SIX TIMES. All attempts at useful discussion have failed and Andy continues to promote the idea of deleting the article altogether on the basis that any list of deleted or changed scenes about a film is not encyclopedic and has no place on[REDACTED] despite hundreds of films on[REDACTED] having such annotations. Thus far Andy hasn't brought up the article for Deletion because he knows he will lose. I am dealing with AndyTheGrump as one deals with a bully. If I had simply reverted all his reversions, then I would stand accused. What Andy is doing is Vandalism plain and simple. Feldon23 (talk) 18:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

If "feldon23 is an account have used rarely on wikipedia", can you please let us know which other accounts you have been using? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:24, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

feldon23 is my one and only Misplaced Pages account. When are you going to bring the article up for Deletion? That's what you've indicated you feel should happen.Feldon23 (talk) 23:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is anyone aware of the process for creating a sock puppet investigation here as it seems there is something worth investigating here. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I'll pass any such test. Meanwhile the points I've raised go unanswered.Feldon23 (talk) 12:27, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the board for your issues. This is the 3RR board and Andy clearly isn't guilty of 3RR as has been pointed out. I suggest you move to the talk page of the article in question and raise your points there. Perhaps you could raise a WP:RFC to get more neutral input? GimliDotNet (talk) 12:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I've left a welcome message on your talk page, this contains many useful links, including how to help resolve dispute. Hope it's useful for you. GimliDotNet (talk) 12:41, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:82.41.22.244 reported by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (Result: PP)

Page: Chris Moyles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.41.22.244 (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:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on related talk pages:

Comments: This is one aspect of a running dispute over whether mock-awards presented by political advocacy organizations, intended to disparage/deride their "recipients", should be presented in BLP articles as though they were standard, legitimate awards, and whether such faux awards, characterizing the "recipient" as a "bigot" or a "bully", simply amount to abusive invective that should not be included in articles at all. The dispute is in places rather heated. In the last day or so, this IP-hopping user(with whom I've been involved in other disputes, where it has used multiple account names and IPs) has targeted the article for particular attention, repeatedly adding back contentious and disputed BLP content with the claim that no consensus has been established to remove it. (In the recent past, the disputed content has been removed has been removed by at least three different editors (myself, Noq and Osarius), while supported by Escape Orbit and the IP.) The IP's actions are clearly intended as disruption, attacking (usually in edit summaries) those on the opposite side of the dispute as "vandals" , removing comments from talk pages , and even suggesting that such repeatedly disputed content is not "contentious" .
Given both the evident BLP problems and the plainly disruptive intentions of the IP, I believe that, in accordance with the outcomes of multiple similar past disputes, my own editing is exempt from 3RR limits and requires no more extended discussion than I have already provided. I will, of course, conform future edits to whatever is determined here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Page protected for a period of 4 days. Please consider bringing this to WP:BLPN for further input. Swarm 19:42, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank ou. There have been several related discussions recently on BLPN recently, with a more general discussion now on BLPN AT Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Stonewall_Awards - Bigot of the year "award" where I've commented. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that this is the first time that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who is far more guilty of edit warring on this article than anyone, has bother to clarify his edits, and he still declines to join the discussion on the article talk page. The cause of this dispute lies completely at his feet. Why couldn't he have done this at the start? --Escape Orbit 16:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Pseudo-Richard reported by User:LoveMonkey (Result: Reporter blocked 24h)

Page: Filioque (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pseudo-Richard (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:
Here's the output of 3rr.php for this dispute, counting just the edits of Pseudo-Richard:

1. 04:12, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "reverting rant which, even if sourced, is off-topic in this section which is titled "Recent attempts at reconciliation"; discuss on Talk Page")
2. 17:00, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466544018 by LoveMonkey (talk)")
3. 17:09, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ Moving text that discusses recent theological perspectives to a separate section; this section is about "attempts at reconciliation"")
4. 18:41, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "rv LoveMonkey's restoration; put history in the "historical" section and recent developments in the "recent" section")

Pseudo-Richard's edits numbers 2 and 3 are consecutive. So he has made only three reverts altogether.

For comparison, here are LoveMonkey's recent edits on the same article:

1. 01:43, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored ENTIRE SECTION THAT WAS SOURCED WHY DID ESOGLOU DELETE THIS MUCH MATERIAL WITHOUT TALKPAGE CONSENSUS?")
2. 16:48, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466460105 by Pseudo-Richard (talk)reverted editwarring by Roman Catholic editors whom are edit warring")
3. 18:26, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466547111 by Pseudo-Richard (talk)reverted POV blanket deletion of sourced material address on talkpage")
4. 18:28, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Recent attempts at reconciliation */ added back in summary rename")
5. 18:29, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Joint statement in the United States in 2003 */ and this one")
6. 18:36, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ since revert failed readded conent and altered content to reflect talkpage comments by other editors")
7. 18:37, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ clarification")
8. 18:39, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ change title to reflect what can be sourced by source agreed upon by editors")
9. 18:49, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ partial restore will restore other parts once I complete sourcing")
10. 18:50, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Adoption into the Nicene Creed */")
11. 18:51, 18 December 2011 (edit summary: "/* Interpolation into the Nicene Creed */ restored sourcable summary")

Edits 3-8 and 9-11 of LoveMonkey are consecutive. So LoveMonkey has made at most four reverts altogether on December 18. Some of his edits may just be shuffling material around or adding new text, so they may not be reverts. Other users are invited to study the pattern of edits to see if there is an actual revert war. LoveMonkey is restricted from changing anything related to Catholic beliefs, though he may edit Eastern Orthodox material. See WP:RESTRICT for details. I won't be able to look further into this for several hours,so other admins are welcome to close this if they can figure it out. The Filioque has been the scene of furious edit wars in the past. A dispute about the Filioque is the source of the split between the Orthodox and Catholic faiths. EdJohnston (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

On the part of Pseudo-Richard, 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. On the part of LoveMonkey, I do count four actual reverts; Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Swarm 19:59, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Harrumph... it looks like I just barely avoided crossing over the "bright line" of 3RR and I recognize that this is not a good thing. I normally try to observe WP:1RR and I confess that I was a bit more irritable than usual this morning and just didn't have the patience to follow WP:DR and issue a WP:RFC as I probably should have.

In recognition of the principle that "both sides are guilty in an edit war", I will refrain from editing this article until LoveMonkey's block has expired. I have made a fuller exposition of these points on the article's .

--Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Is there a "like" button? That's truly good of you - I wish more people who involved themselves in edit-wars (whether intentionally or accidentally) would be so honourable. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:50.16.108.39 reported by User:PassaMethod (Result: 1 month)

Page: Incest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Islamic schools and branches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 50.16.108.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert: (edit summary: better in intro. don't hide the info. that rhymes)
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

If you check the 3rd edit summary he rhymes and jokes. I want a page protection for both pages as he's just stalking me. Pass a Method talk 11:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Result: Blocked one month. Whois shows that this IP is coming from a range used by Amazon AWS. Web servers should not edit Misplaced Pages. I'm filing this case at WP:OP so that others can check my reasoning and see if a longer proxy block is appropriate. The neighboring IPs in the /16 range do not seem to be the source of any similar abuse so a range block appears unnecessary. EdJohnston (talk) 15:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:PeeJay2K3 reported by Longwayround (talk) (Result: No vio)

Page: 1986 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: PeeJay2K3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 19:49, 18 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "where was this discussed?")
2. 08:40, 19 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 466598920 by Walter Görlitz (talk) per WP:BRD, yes it is")
3. 16:14, 19 December 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 466699002 by Walter Görlitz (talk) it's not up to me to discuss, per WP:BRD")

• Diff of warning: here

—Longwayround (talk) 16:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Walter Görlitz reported by Longwayround (talk) (Result:No vio )

Page: 1986 FIFA World Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Walter Görlitz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 16:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

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

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

• Diff of warning: here

Longwayround (talk) 16:43, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I recognize that I am at three reverts and plan to stay there. Thanks.

Fixing first diff while I'm in here. And correcting third as it was the same as the second. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I should have kept count better! Longwayround (talk) 20:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:RealCowboys reported by User:Longwayround (Result:12hr )

Page: Real Madrid C.F. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: RealCowboys (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:

I'm really not trying to find edit wars! I notice from this diff that RealCowboys has, himself, recognised that he could be seen as edit warring and I had thought he had stopped. However, his attitude and that of another user at Talk:Real_Madrid_C.F. is also rather lacking in civility. Longwayround (talk) 20:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We don't block for 3 reverts and an uncivil comment :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:01, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I certainly am not looking for blocks in any case. Longwayround (talk) 21:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

This editor and one other appear to be fans of Spanish rival football clubs and it's getting nasty. Longwayround has been helpful in addressing the issues and agree that he may have lost count between the two articles. If the edit wars continue, I may request complete lock on both for a few days so that cooler heads may prevail. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Editor has just made forth revert. Please block for a short period of time so as to not bite the newbie. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 12 hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:El duderino reported by User:Lhb1239 (Result: both editors warned)

Page: Talk:Mad Men (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: El duderino (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: No. Did not try to resolve on article talk page, rather, attempted to reason with him on my own talk page after he started a campaign of harassment there, directed at me two nights ago and as an unidentified IP. Please see the following links: ; ; ; ;

Comments:

The article talk page in question contained a section that was started with the OP as a commentary/question as to whether or not the show's producers were attepting to make a statement about smoking. The OP and follow-up comments did not address anything related to the article, rather, only about the show itself. I, therefore, removed these comments per WP:NOTAFORUM. El duderino, not logged in with his account but editing unannounced with two different IPs, replaced the comments along with biting edit summaries numerous times on 12/16/11 (diffs/links listed above) and has continued doing so again today. I am reporting this not as 3RR, but edit warring behavior by the above-named editor in an effort to make a point - the edit warring behavior from this editor began on 12/16/11 as two different IPs. While edit warring at this article talk page, he then filed a frivolous 3RR report here against me - it was almost immediately removed by King of Hearts with the edit summary, "enough already". More of the story can be seen at these versions of the editor's talkpages (here and here) associated with the IPs he was using (in myopinion, using them intentionally to sock - thus, the SPI I filed as seen here: ) Based on all of the above, it is my opinion that this editor is being intentionally disruptive via WP:POINT and WP:EDITWAR and will continue to do so without hesitation (as evidenced by his continued edit warring behavior today). Lhb1239 (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2011 (UTC) -->

User:Lhb1239 has also edit warred and this report is an abuse of the 3RR noticeboard. He has been attempting to remove legitimate discussion from the article talkpage. His various attempts to get me blocked all failed. The Vandalism report was denied. The SPI was denied. And the ANI was ignored. Three admins ruled against him and advised him to move along. Before he filed this frivolous report, I submitted this request for Misplaced Pages:Wikiquette_assistance#User_removing_article_talkpage_discussion. -El duderino (talk) 21:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Adding that the user being reported altered this report (see here); I believe doing so speaks further to his edit warring and disruptive editing behaviors. I have reverted the inappropriate changes. Lhb1239 (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Why were they inappropriate? They were indeed, stale, and should not be part of this report to begin with. Both of you have been 100% involved with edit-warring on both the article, and the talkpage. IMHO, you should both be blocked to give you more than half a chance to read WP:DR. El duderino - your insistence that you're not violating WP:NOTAFORUM is pathetic - you're continuing to re-add just to piss off the other editor. Likewise, Lhb1239 is simply throwing the shotgun approach around above. How many hours of break would you both like ... 24? 48? 72? A week? You guys choose, and you both get exactly the same. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:55, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It's my opinion that the edit to the report was inappropriate because when a report has been filed, the involved editor should not be altering the report. If it was inappropriate for me to add them initially you have my apologies, but let an administrator or uninvolved editor say so according to policy - the editor being reported should not remove them (correct?). I added them to show a history - as I stated clearly above, this report was filed for edit warring at a particular article talk page. Is it not true that edit warring can take place over a period of days? That's my understanding of edit warring behavior, anyway. I have no intention of removing the inappropriate content to the article talk page again; I'll just let the archive do it when the time comes. Lhb1239 (talk) 22:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

...and so, how many hours break from Misplaced Pages would the two of you like? Work it out and let me know: you'll both get the same (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you being serious? I've never heard of such a thing and, frankly, don't understand why I am being punished here. I know blocks are to be preventative not punative, so I don't see how blocking me is going prevent anything disruptive from happening. I've already said I'm not going to be removing the inappropriate content at the article talk page. Perhaps you could explain your thought process on this? Lhb1239 (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Having just read WP:DR in its totality, I can see that even though El duderino acted inappropriately and harassed me on my talk page over a couple of hours on the 17th, I still shouldn't have been afraid to discuss this issue with him when he started up again today -- I especially should have done so before filing this report. At the time I shied away from discussion because I didn't see it would have made any difference and I didn't want to be on the receiving end of more harassment. Now I can see that in trying to discuss I would have been exercising WP:AGF and the effort may have encouraged a different course. Don't know if what I've said in this post will make any difference in your thoughts about blocking, but thought I would let you know anyway. Lhb1239 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

All due respect to BWilkins, I am not re-adding the comments "just to piss off" User:Lhb1239. I sincerely believe it is a worthy point of discussion and his censorship tendencies here are way out of line. His confrontational tone from the beginning just made things worse. El duderino (talk) 01:44, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Note — As Bwilkins said, neither editor should be edit warring on a talk page over non-vandalism. While the talk page guidelines do suggest that it might be ok to remove threads that don't relate to improving the article, they in no way suggest that those comments should be treated as vandalism. As such, there is no exception that allows for edit warring or violations of the three-revert rule. Keep in mind that talk pages are basically the only places that editors are able to raise concerns—they're the places that people can "have a voice" over a page's content—and if people believe that their voice is being taken away in any medium, they will typically react negatively. Misplaced Pages is no exception, and as such, edit wars over talk page threads are like edit wars over someone's ability to speak, so, in the future, please keep that in mind and try to avoid such battles.
For now, I'm marking this as Warned with the explicit understanding that if either or both editor(s) continue(s) this edit war from this point forward, they risk being blocked.
--slakr 03:05, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. Yet, for the record at least I must take issue with User:Lhb1239's continued claims of 'harassment' which are blatantly false and most likely disingenuous. From the very beginning I attempted to discuss the issue on his talkpage to no avail . Then I simply warned him about edit warring, as he did to me both pre-emptively and more recently. He doesn't seem to see his own actions as equivalent to what he complained about as 'harassment.' El duderino (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:65.9.226.65 reported by User:Hearfourmewesique (result:decline - user never warned)

Diffs: Tried to communicate with the IP on their user talk page (no diff since it was the only edit ever made to that page). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Not a single warning for 3RR on their page ... one bizarre comment about WP:NINJA, but no welcome, no rules, no "what is 3rr"...nothing. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

• Add...I have semi'd the page for now. Work it out (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Doncram reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: nv)

Page: William H. Allen (architect) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: First addition of extended quote

• 1st revert: "restore highly relevant, fully cited and credited quote that would be hard to paraphrase, better to quote. If you don't like it, discuss at Talk."
• 2nd revert: "Restore Whitney Avenue HD mention, which specifically includes Allen house at Whitney & Lawrence, mentioned in suitable quote, also restored."

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: "Undid revision 466760357 by Doncram (talk) Your use of verbatim quotes in stubs was determined to be unacceptable by an uninvolved admin. Stays out unless you get consensus for inclusion"

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None. Original uninvolved admin decision was quite clear.

Comments:

Per Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive224#Doncram NHRP stubs, "There is a consensus that Doncram's excessive use of verbatim quotes, which routinely constitutes a significant portion of the stubs at issue, is unacceptable, especially as it implicates WP:NFC (#Another question regarding consensus on article quality)."

Argh. I have had it with SarekOfVulcan following my edits and contending at every step. Today he put a speedy-delete tag on an article i was working on, which led to a DRV restoring the article (because the Speedy was wrong). He 4 times moved another article I was working on, article now at Charles E. Bell. Look at its edit history to see his actually exceeding 3RR. And this. And perhaps more. In each case I opened discussion sections and SarekOfVulcan has chosen not to discuss, but rather to escalate and confront. About the William H. Allen (architect) article, why the hell has he not deigned to comment at the Talk page item.

Something stronger is needed to address this pattern of following and warring. --doncram 22:38, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Please consider recent, bizarre, Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive173#User:SarekOfVulcan reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: Move protected), about another spat of determined edit warring against me. Closed with no negative consequence for Sarek, oddly. I am working to develop articles; SarekOfVulcan is following, interrupting, actively choosing to combat. --doncram 22:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I see Orlady has also removed your extended quotations as "inappropriate". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, this is an Edit Warring noticeboard that you opened a discussion at. Whatever about your buddy Orlady's kneejerk opposition to me, about a matter not properly addressed here. Is it your intention to cause edit warring by your confrontationally fighting at the article, and raising it here? I fully get the idea that you are trying really hard to provoke me. Yes, I said "F u" in an edit summary earlier today. Great. Please do try to escalate further. --doncram 00:35, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation — consider dispute resolution. --slakr 03:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Why is dispute resolution required when an uninvolved admin specifically ruled that Doncram's use of verbatim quotes from sources to pad out his stubs was unacceptable, and Doncram chose to edit war his verbatim quotes back in to the article? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

That uninvolved admin is free to take action himself. As far as my personal opinion, given the article and editor you reported, there was insufficient recent activity to meet the three-revert rule, and there was insufficient long-term activity (again, from what I was able to see) to consider it a protracted edit war. That said, another admin has since blocked Doncram (talk · contribs) for 1 week due to personal attacks/harassment. --slakr 19:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Polaron reported by User:Doncram (Result: Reporter blocked)

Page: 12 different articles
User being reported: Polaron (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Multiple contested redirects going on, implemented by Polaron by use of Twinkle, redirecting multiple articles to newly created List of historic sites preserved along Rochambeau's route.

Articles include (with recent Polaron edit summaries):

1. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Plainfield Pike ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800150 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
2. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Palmer Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800181 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
3. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Manship Road-Barstow Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800171 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
4. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Bailey Road ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Doncram (talk): All useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
5. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Old Canterbury Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800158 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
6. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Hutchinson Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800204 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
7. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Reservoir Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800210 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
8. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Scotland Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800194 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
9. March Route of Rochambeau's Army: Ridgebury Road ‎ (Reverted to revision 466800217 by Polaron: all useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
10. Forty-Seventh Camp of Rochambeau's Army ‎ (Reverted 1 edit by Doncram (talk): All useful content in target. (TW)) (top)
11. Fourth Camp of Rochambeau's Army ‎ (all useful content in target) (top)
12. Camps Nos. 10 and 41 of Rochambeau's Army ‎ (all useful content in target) (top)

Previous version reverted to:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Please see User talk:Polaron#Rochambeau march route historic sites, at which I sought dialogue some time ago. His not responding, and proceeding with redirects now, plus re-reredirects using Twinkle after I restored many of the articles, is not constructive. --doncram 03:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Mentioned above. --doncram 03:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See edit history for any of the above. At a minimum, i ask that Polaron's Twinkle privileges be revoked. --doncram 03:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

Just to let everyone know that Doncram has been blocked for a week for personal attacks by Jayron32. Minima© (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:JWULTRABLIZZARD and User:Gunmetal Angel reported by User:Abhijay (Result:both users blocked )

Page: Deathcore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User being reported: Gunmetal Angel (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:

This is yet again another showdown between Gunmetal Angel and another editor, and it is not violating the 3RR rule in 24 hours, it appears to be more chronic, and I am concerned that the user Gunmetal still shows no signs of understanding of edit warring. I've tried to solve the issue by leaving a message on the talk page of the Article. However, Ironically, Gunmetal Angel appears to have gone into a good approach to dispute with another user. Abhijay /_Deeds 03:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours for JWULTRA and one week for Gunmetal as this is their fourth edit warring block Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Kellytang reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:page protected )

Page: Park Min-Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kellytang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User edit warring with another user and anons and violated 3RR before any warning was given. --SMS 16:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

6th revert was done after 3RR warning. --SMS 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• I count at least four involved parties, some behaving worse than others but all edit warring. * Page protected Beeblebrox (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Jsyun true reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:page protected )

Page: Lee Min Ho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jsyun true (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User Edit warring with other users on content issue. --SMS 16:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See above. * Page protected Beeblebrox (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Khushi143 reported by User:Smsarmad (Result:page protected )

Page: Lee Min Ho (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khushi143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Page: Park Min-Young (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Khushi143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:
User as seen above is edit warring on two articles with two different users. And I think its important to consider the edits of IPs 42.104.103.170 and 112.79.183.77 on the above two pages which were probably used by the same user. --SMS 17:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

See above. * Page protected Beeblebrox (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Hanlon1755 reported by User:Machine Elf 1735 (Result:24 hour block )

Page: Strict conditional (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Hanlon1755 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 09:52, 19 Dec

• 1st revert:  11:11, 19 Dec / (diff to above)
• 2nd revert: 23:56, 19 Dec / (incl. minor alt.)
• 3rd revert: 05:26, 20 Dec / (with additional alt.)
• 4th revert: 10:08, 20 Dec / (incl. alt., +new section w/uncited "references")
• 5th revert: 17:00, 20 Dec / (incl. alt. + addt.)

Ongoing:

• 6th revert: 18:16, 20 Dec / (diff to 5th)
• 7th revert: 19:22, 20 Dec / (diff to 5th)

Updated:Machine Elf  19:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• 21:04, 19 Dec (warned by Fences and windows)
• 17:18, 20 Dec (my editsum when reverting user's 1st rv at Material conditional)
• 17:27, 20 Dec (note user's edsum for 2nd rv was "BRD Process")
• 17:44, 20 Dec (redundant warning at user's talk)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Ongoing at Talk:Strict conditional (also at my talk page).

Comments: See also, 2 reverts at Material conditional… just a bit too caught up in a single purpose… (to be young again).—Machine Elf  19:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Dougweller (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User: 86.** IP reported by User:William M. Connolley (Result: 48h)

Page: Global warming conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 86.** IP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (removes fringe and POV tag)

Note: this page is under 1RR (and probably ARBCC type stuff, too)

• 1st revert: (restores POV and fringe tags)
• 2nd revert: (ditto)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Well, you can see the article talk page if you like, also the warning above was an attempt to help, though it didn't go down very well .

Comments:
William's claims of trying to resolve the dispute on the article talk page are laughable: he actually tried to escalate the dispute there. His reversion contains a personal attack, and he has explicitly attempted to shut me up repeatedly surrounding this event

His warning on my talk page was actually an attempt to blackmail me into stopping all discussion, in the entire area of global warming. : "The usual procedure in this case would be to self-revert, but you can't. The usual fall back is to offer to leave the area alone for a while"

This is a blatant attempt to abuse process by William. He comes to my talk page, points out something, and then tells me that, because there's nothing I should do, I should stop all editing in the entire area - then comes here to get me blocked when I note that option as the attempt at abuse of process it is.

I think there's a problem with these articles. William doesn't. Instead of engaging in discussion, Williaam prefers to revert all attempts to discuss it.

Further, the first supposed reversion (it's at least ambiguous) was simply obeying a talk page request to wait to tag until after an AfD closed, and requires looking back a week, ignores the stated reasons for the reversion, which, however invalid I think they are, certainly don't apply now. William is attempting to use a technicality to get me censured, and is lying about his own escalating behaviours.

Surely one can't be given a warning, which tells you there's nothing can be done to undo the 1RR, and then be told to stop all edits in a field or have process be pulled down on you - especially when giving that warning is a requirement for use of that process? 86.** IP (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

User:86.** IP, WMC is correct in stating that an offer to leave the area alone might be accepted when it is too late to self-revert. Since you have broken the 1RR on this article, which is under WP:ARBCC, any offer from you would be carefully listened to. The alternative would seem to be a conventional block for breaking the WP:1RR, a restriction which is clearly marked on the article's talk page and is logged here. EdJohnston (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I seriously don't see how I could do anything, given that it was already reverted when the first warning about it came into play. I was actually attempting to follow 1RR, but was not aware the first edit would count, because of the changed circumstances and being a somewhat different edit, created de novo.

This was a simple misunderstanding, I cannot see how a topic ban - which is what William wanted me to agree to for this minor mistake - is justified. Had I been told that the first edit counted when there was something I could have done, I would have happily reverted. But to be told to stop all editing in an entire area because I made a minor mistake by putting up a variation of an edit I made, which edit is no longer on the page seems ridiculous.

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. I fail to see how this discussion serves any purpose. It was an honest mistake, which William is using to troll me. 86.** IP (talk) 04:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If you want folks to give you the benefit of the doubt over a simple misunderstanding, perhaps you should treat them that way when they make mistakes of their own? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:43, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocked — 48 hours. Noting that the user declined to make any offer to limit his future edits in this area, as an alternative to a block. A quick look indicates there is some dispute among the parties about when articles ought to be tagged. Tags fall under the revert rules like any other article content, so far as the WP:EW policy goes. Adding to the excitement, User:86.** IP made what looks like a third revert to the article within 24 hours, while this very discussion was in progress. I guess the 1RR wasn't already broken enough. The editor has already been notified of the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARBCC. He is urged to edit more carefully in the future. EdJohnston (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

A welcome respite. However, the problem here is not an isolated, possibly accidental 1RR, but a broad pattern of disruptive editing. And, unfortunately, will only continue in full blast once the block expires. As this editor seems immune to correction, a permanent block may be necessary. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Rusted AutoParts reported by User:AussieLegend (Result:not blocked )

Page: Russell Crowe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Rusted AutoParts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 22:03, 19 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466657383 by Bidgee (talk)it is normal ng releases to filmography. Please, before reverting again, take it up on the talk page.")
• 2nd revert: 03:09, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "i requested you bring this to the talk page before reverting again, i guess you didn't see that. It's common to add upcoming films to the fimography. If it's cancelled, remove it, date changed? change the date. No reason whatsoever why they can't be.")
• 3rd revert: 16:16, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466806484 by Bidgee (talk)please read your talk page AND my edit summaries")
• 4th revert: 22:05, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466882468 by AussieLegend (talk)Final time reverting. PLEASE take to talk page so we can discuss this. I'll even start it")

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on user's talk page:

Comments:
I happened across this accidentally. Rusted AutoParts possted on Bidgee's talk page, claiming he had breached 3RR. However, a review of the edit history of Russell Crowe showed this was not the case; at the time of the post Bidgee had reverted only twice on the article's page in the previous 24 hours. Bidgee's previous revert was 18 hours prior to that. However, Rusted AutoParts had made 3 reverts in under 18 hours, so I placed a 3RR warning on his talk page, noting the above. I included a note that I believed the inclusion was WP:CRYSTAL, which I expanded upon later after realising that the article on the movie being added to Russell Crowe very clearly failed WP:NFF. Despite being active for a 3-hour period after placing his warning on Bidgee's talk page, Rusted AutoParts waited until 2 minutes after the 24-hour mark had passed before making his fourth revert. While this doesn't breach the letter of WP:3RR, it does breach the spirit of it. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:13, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not blocked I take your point, but as his last revert's edit summary says "Final time reverting. PLEASE take to talk page so we can discuss this. I'll even start it" and I see he has started a discussion at the talk page, I believe a block at this point would be inappropriate. Dougweller (talk) 07:26, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Count Iblis reported by User:Beeblebrox (Result: warned)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Government (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Count Iblis (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: (really one revert over two edits, combined with above diff)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• User talk:Count Iblis#Your recent edits at Misplaced Pages:Government and it's talk page
• Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 13#Misplaced Pages:Government
• Misplaced Pages:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Government

Comments:

• Count Iblis has been engaging in a slow motion edit war to keep a "failed" tag off of a proposal he wrote that failed, and to keep the "proposed" tag on it despite the fact that he himself has re-written it to the point where the original proposal is long gone and was replaced with a descriptive page that clearly is not a proposal. Three users, including myself, restored the "failed tag" a total of four times. All four have been reverted by Count Iblis. The consensus at the mfd of the page heavily favors the position that this is a failed proposal. The Count is a long term active user and has been involved on the margins of many disputes and therefore is obviously well aware of the edit warring policy and has chosen to ignore not only that but common sense and the emergent consensus at the MFD for the page. (now overdue at 11 days in case anyone would care to close it and possibly render this whole thing moot.) Beeblebrox (talk) 05:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The MfD debate has several well-reasoned 'Keep' votes by experienced editors, and more than one person says it it's logical to keep the proposal but mark it as Failed. In my opinion, if the deletion debate were closed now, Keep is the more likely outcome. I'll notify User:Count Iblis that he may be blocked for edit warring unless he will agree to wait for consensus about the Failed tag. Even though the Count has worked to stave off the 'failed' outcome by revising the proposal, both old and new versions still retain this nutshell, which appears to differ from current policy: "This page in a nutshell: A government is a group of editors who have the de-facto exclusive right to make certain types of edits to articles, policy pages, or administrative decisions for a limited time. Governments are always agreed to by consensus." EdJohnston (talk) 05:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Warned — marking as warned per EdJohnston; feel free to re-open / re-report if he continues --slakr 19:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Look, I don't have time for these stupid tactical games that are played here and on the proposal page. I was just in it for writing up something that would have cnsensus and the first iteration was just that, one to gauge the opnion the feedback of that would be used in the next version. But I forgot about this proposal for a while and was too busy with other things. But Beeblebrox and a few others are only in it to mark the original version as failed and don't want me to write up something that is acceptable to the community. Yesterday, I had some minutes to spare for Misplaced Pages and I though "let's write in the proposal itself that a formal government system is not acceptable to the community". But then that's acknowledging that the first version is not acceptable, so it would then not be appropriate to mark the latest version as failed. Of course, one can also say that this should be an essay or something else. I really don't care that much, except for the failed tag on any new text. If Beeblebrox wants to copy the original proposal and put a failed tag on that, then he can always go ahead and do that. Then one perhaps needs to discuss if the present version needs to be moved elsewhere. But no such constructive discussions are going on at all, all I hear is a few people shouting "Failed, Failed, Failed" and I can hardly edit here in the little time I have, all the time gets wasted on this and other boards where I basically need to defend the fact that the page was edited. Count Iblis (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Count Iblis, extensive discussion shows that WIkipedia:Government is a failed proposal. If you remove the 'failed' tag again you will most likely be blocked. Edit warring to keep that page looking like a live policy document in Misplaced Pages space is not acceptable. EdJohnston (talk) 00:15, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This report is obviously not about the validity of the proposal but rather about the manifest fact that he has edit warred to retain his preffered version of a page that is in WP space, not user space. He's been warned to stop already, and has ignored those warnings. Logic and reason have been tried, he has ignored them as well. I'm kind of surprised nobody has done the block. It should be fairly clear that the Count has willingly ignored consensus repeatedly over the course of this incident. The adding of the "proposed" tag at this point is utter nonsense as, by his own admission, there is no proposal, yet he has continued to insist on, defying all logic along with consensus. Another warning is just another thing for him to ignore, by his own admission (see the header on his user and talk pages) he does not believe he is bound by WP policy, andf his actions in this affair reflect that. Another warning seems unlikely to assist in adjusting that perspective. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Very well, I'll make it an essay then. Also, I'm going to raise this issue of using strong arm tactics to prevent constructive editing on AN/I. These days, parts of Misplaced Pages have become a cesspool, better to stay away from there until someone cleans out this whole mess. Count Iblis (talk) 01:08, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

The editing history doesn't show that I've edit warred about the actual content of the proposal at all. It does show that Beeblebrox has been acting in a rather aggressive way there. The text now says that the community doesn't want a formal government system, so I really don't see the big deal about people wanting to have the current text marked as a failed proposal, because the original objection was against a formal government system. Count Iblis (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't insist on making this look like a real Misplaced Pages policy people might not be so irritated. You have had many months to elicit any support that you were ever going to get. A statements on your user page says "Count Iblis rejects most of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines." It is hard not to see Misplaced Pages:Government as part of a crusade in which you are the only crusader. EdJohnston (talk) 01:47, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I've raised the real issues with this at AN/I. Count Iblis (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

You've raised the fact that you have lost all touch with reality as far as this issue is cncerned at ANI? That's just what we need, a fifth discussion of this fantasy realm of yours. Well done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:56, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:198.1.37.220 and other IPS reported by User:Eldamorie (Result: )

Page: Evil clown (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 198.1.37.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This IP, as well as several others, have been repeatedly adding a lengthy list at Evil clown (as seen in of the article, without using any sort of edit summaries or attempts to justify the content. The majority of this article is already a list of pop culture occurrences.

I brought it up at the talk page today, although the IP/s have made no attempt to justify the changes in any way. Additional eyes would be helpful. eldamorie (talk) 18:46, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments:

User:129.252.69.40 reported by User:LesPhilky (Result: )

Page: Carolina–Clemson rivalry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) South Carolina Gamecocks football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 129.252.69.40 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

This IP, which is attributed to the University of South Carolina computer services division, has been edit warring these two pages to delete factual, relevant, and sourced information. I cannot attempt to discuss the issue because there could be hundreds or thousands of people at the university using this IP. This IP has been blocked in the past due to vandalism of pages. I request that this IP be further blocked from these two pages. The IP may also be used by GarnetAndBlack (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also tried to delete the same information. Two weeks ago, GarnetAndBlack and I were temporarily blocked from one of the pages and asked to resolve the issue together. I have since avoided reverting his contributions and tried to work peacefully to make edits, but he has once again turned it into an effort to skew the contents of the page.--LesPhilky (talk) 20:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
Comments:

User:Zenkai251 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: 24h)

Page: Creationism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Zenkai251 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

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

Creationism

1. 19:11, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466989498 by HiLo48 (talk)sorry, I meant the name of the linked article")
2. 21:29, 21 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 467071493 by HiLo48 (talk)it does need to change. do you have a good reason for it not to?")

Genesis creation narrative

1. 06:38, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "")
2. 06:47, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466822663 by Hrafn (talk)"A" is more grammatically correct than "The" when placed before "common"; therefore it's a minor edit")
3. 06:50, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "proper grammer")
4. 06:54, 20 December 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 466823527 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk)yes, I realized my typo when it was too late. it needs "most" added in to be grammatically correct")

Link to diff of warning:

• Aug 6 on Genesis Creation narrative
• Nov 9 on Adam
• Dec 16 on Genesis Creation narrative
• Dec 16 on Talk:Genesis Creation narrative
• Dec 20
• Dec 20 on Genesis Creation narrative
• Dec 21 on Creationism

Comments: User is consistently violating WP:EW (but not 3rr) on a range of articles. He's been consistently warned by a variety of users, both with templates and personal messages, on his talk and article talk pages. His response has always been to remove the warning without comment, often citing claims of "atheist bias" in his edit summary. 5 EW warnings in one month is over the line. See his comment here, for instance, where he indicates that since he's "right", the EW warning is invalid. User has received plenty of chances, and needs a block to indicate this is not acceptable behavior and to prevent further disruption.   — Jess· Δ♥ 22:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Update: And after this report was filed... another warning by an admin, and subsequent removal by Zenkai without comment.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Exactly what those who were asking for "one more chance for Zenkai" in 2 different ANI-threads will get. He was given a free pass to continue his behavior by community consensus. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 23:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours — I normally check for it, but I was a little distracted and accidentally duplicated an edit warring warning from another user that he removed. I double checked his talk page history for other recent warnings, and it turns out it definitely wasn't the first (e.g. ). --slakr 23:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: no action)

Page: Susan B. Anthony List (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 17:37, December 21, 2011. Removed the word "scholars".
• 2nd revert: 19:06, December 21, 2011. Removed the word "scholars".
• No 3rd diff needed, article is under 1RR for abortion topics.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:
Also, previous discussion about the word "scholars" at Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List#Interpreting_WP:SAY, Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List/Archive_1#Pro-choicers_vs_academic_history_experts and Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_List/Archive_1#Scholars. Related discussion at Talk:Susan_B._Anthony_abortion_dispute#Scholars

Comments:

NYyankees51 has for more than a year been intent on removing the word scholar or scholars from the related articles Susan B. Anthony List and Susan B. Anthony abortion dispute. This removal of the word scholars on October 29, 2010, shows how long the dispute has been running.(Note that NYyankees51 was operating a sockpuppet at the time: User:BS24.) This string of edits in March 2011 shows an instance of NYyankees51 removing information about "Anthony scholar Ann Dexter Gordon" providing a solid rebuttal to an SBA List assertion. Again in May 2011 he removed the phrase "scholars of 19th-century feminism pointing out that Anthony did not work against abortion". Much of NYyankees51 work on the article has been to advance the causes of SBA List and to diminish as much as possible the scholarship of those who have spoken out against the organization or against its assertions. Included among the Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of NYyankees51 is one that is owned by SBA List: 70.21.119.84. At Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/NYyankees51/Archive, another SBA List-owned IP address was listed as a sockpuppet: 75.103.237.18. This shows that NYyankees51 has a close connection to SBA List, and may explain his longterm effort to weaken any scholarly rebuttal. Binksternet (talk) 00:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is more of a technical error than edit warring. I was making many edits to the page and saved one when the edit conflict screen came up because of Binksternet's edit here. I saved my edit to replace it and inserted the {{inuse}} template, finished my editing, and removed the template. I should have been more careful and actually looked at the edit conflict before replacing it, but I was working hard and I didn't. Had I put the {{inuse}} template in from the start, the issue could have been avoided, and that's my fault. But this isn't blatant edit warring as much as a technical error. Also, the conflict of interest allegation was addressed months ago, so I'm not sure why it's being brought up. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:02, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

An edit conflict on a 1RR article is a big red flag. It should bring your new contribution to a complete halt so you can determine whether your continued editing is in violation. I gave you plenty of opportunity to revert yourself, and you did not. You still have not as of this moment. Binksternet (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not solely a 1RR issue. The information about your past editing is there to show that the issue is also longterm edit warring, despite multiple talk page discussions. Binksternet (talk) 01:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

We both have engaged in long-term edit warring. In a dispute between two editors, there cannot be just one editor edit-warring. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

NYyankees51, is there a reason you have not self-reverted the contested material as requested? Kuru (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm tired. NYyankees51 (talk) 01:54, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note An accidental overwrite seems to make sense given the string of edits; presuming that the self revert covered the contested material, this seems resolved. If that didn't cover it, let me know what the problem is and I'll make the edit. Kuru (talk) 01:57, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Bidgee reported by User:101.170.176.56 (Result: )

Page: User talk:Bidgee (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bidgee (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:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring