Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:42, 25 April 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:DeusExa reported by User:Msnicki (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: , reverting a sentence that has been in the article since Aug 7 2008, under what appears to be an alias, 169.229.82.172.
• 2nd revert: , as 136.152.209.246.
• 3rd revert: .
• 4th revert: .

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , ,

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Numerous attempts have been made to request discussion, in edit summaries by me("Once again restoring a useful sentence that's been here over 1000 edits. Before undoing, please discuss on talk page.") and 66.59.249.107 ("It was here before; if you want it removed, discuss it first in the talk page."), on the article talk page and on the editor(s)' talk pages. The editor is simply refusing to discuss his edits and not even providing useful edit summaries. Moreover, there's reason to doubt the editor is acting in good faith, given that he's added a statement to the UC Berkeley that's remarkably similar to the one he insists on deleting from the Stanford article.

Msnicki (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

There is one big difference: the material removed from the Stanford article is without sources, and the material added to the Berkeley article has a source for each claim. --Diannaa 05:14, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

(a) There are no sources there, but if you follow the links to the articles for the companies listed, you will find the sources. (b) That would be a lot more interesting argument if it was was DeusExa, not you, making it. (c) There appears to be a consensus supporting having the sentence. That matters on WP. (d) I didn't write it. Msnicki (talk) 07:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It was just reverted again, this time by User:169.229.82.172 who reverted it once before. We are either looking at sockpuppets or else a concerted, organized effort by Cal students to sabotage the Stanford article. Sorry for not assuming good faith but the repeated ignoring of requests to discuss it make good faith unlikely. --MelanieN (talk) 03:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I restored the sentence in question and added a source. There is now no justification for removing it, since it is sourced. --MelanieN (talk) 13:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Ohnoitsjamie reported by Pi (Talk to me! ) (Result: 24 h)

Page: Passover Seder Plate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 19:47, 21 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by 99.32.190.213")
2. 19:59, 21 April 2011 (edit summary: "you don't get to inject your own opinions here")
3. 20:46, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "rv again")
4. 20:47, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie")
5. 20:51, 22 April 2011 (edit summary: "Reverted edits by 69.116.44.219 (talk) to last version by Ohnoitsjamie")

Note, User:Ohnoitsjamie, being an admin has blocked the IP who made the edits he was reverting

—Pi (Talk to me! ) 20:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

It was a clear cut case of repeat NPOV editing. I gave him plenty of warnings, which were ignored. OhNoitsJamie 21:08, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The way I interpreted the edits (yesterday and today) is that firstly 69... removed a paragraph and put a POV edit summary in, and rightfully you restored it. However, it's the 4 times that you removed the word minority without going to the talk page, or going to the user talk page with an attempt to find mutually satisfying wording (for example specifying specific Jewish groups which do or don't use the orange) which I think is poor form for an experienced admin. In my opinion, just because an editor has a POV and is changing the meaning of a paragraph it doesn't mean that the original paragraph was neutral, or even more neutral than the IP's edits. Pi (Talk to me! ) 21:18, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

•  Administrator note I find the edit warring entirely unacceptable. ONJ only left boilerplate messages on the IP talk page, didn't bother to use the real talk page, and used the rollback tool. If I am to treat ONJamie as any other user, I would block him for 24 hours, and reduce the block time on the IP (the IP is using such language as "arbitration" which clearly shows the IP is aware of Misplaced Pages policies, and thus 3RR). But frankly, I don't feel like dealing with another shitfest on my talk page, so I'll just leave my comment and recommendation for a few hours and wait to see if another administrator responds. Magog the Ogre (talk) 00:40, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• I am somewhat suspicious with the IPs first edit here, removing the whole section that was later warred over with the edit summary "(This is an abomination and a disgrace to Jewish culture.)". If someone started a long dispute with that and I was an uninvolved admin I might react as Jamie did here. However, I don't know if he was uninvolved or not. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• If we're going to assume that this was the administrator mistaking the edits for POV pushing to the point of disruption, then a) we should reprimand the administrator for not paying attention, as the last 4 changes were not outright POV pushing, and frankly the behavior wasn't bad at all, and b) either block both of them or unblock the IP. Magog the Ogre (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• My thoughts are that while the initial edit by the IP that blanked the paragraph was unacceptable POV, subsequent edits were more reasonable (as far as I know making a rash POV edit doesn't mean you can't subsequently make an edit in a better way, as the IP did). ONJ made 5 revisions, with the last 4 being to basically remove the term "minority", which may be more accurate than the original text (I don't feel I know enough about the issue to say which version I prefer). Although ONJ says he gave warnings, all these warnings were simply the template warnings, and I'd have thought he could just as easily have tried to discuss the wording on the talkpage. I'm also not convinced that removing the word "minority" is less POV than putting it in. It would appear to me that two editors who disputed whether or not the word "minority" should appear in the sentence repeatedly reverted each other until the one who was an admin blocked the other for 3RR (while making 4 reverts himself). Pi (Talk to me! ) 04:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jamie seems to be mistaken in his edits here. This is not POV pushing as a quick check online and in the source quoted in the article shows the oranges are not really catching on. It is not vandalism either. I think they should both be blocked for edit warring, or the IP should be unblocked. Since no 3RR warnings were issued to the IP and they did not discuss on the talk page, I would suggest unblocking the IP. --Diannaa 04:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops there is a wee conversation on the talk page; Jamie says if you continue to remove it you'll be blocked. But the IP did not continue to remove it. He changed the wording. --Diannaa 04:37, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Jamie has not edited for three hours so this might have to wait till morning to be resolved. --Diannaa 05:17, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've encountered this before from an admin, who I locked an article on. It's entirely unacceptable to act this way. It's either negligence in not bothering to read any of the four diffs while fighting vandalism, or it's intentionally disregarding the rules. i stlll think that a) a block on the IP was appropriate, and b) a block on the admin would also be appropriate, unless ONJ comes clean and can admit fault where it lies. Self-criticism is a vitally important tool in all of life . And meting out justice blindly, without regard for someone's title, is also important (thus, if the IP also were to come clean, I would say an unblock be appropriate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I thought "being right" (in the absence of reverting vandalism) wasn't a defense to edit-warring. Is that not right? Regardless of Jamie's reason for the revert (if it wasn't reverting vandalism) and whether or not he engaged in talk or left appropriate messages... didn't he break 3RR? If so, why wouldn't he being treated like any other editor breaking 3RR? DeCausa (talk) 08:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours This is after consideration that

• the evidence shows that Ohnoitsjamie has edit-warred,
• the preceding discussion shows that other editors agree about this,
• Ohnoitsjamie as an administrator is presumed not to need warnings about the edit-warring policy,
• of the five edits Ohnoitsjamie reverted, only the first was vandalism (removing lots of sourced text for no clear reason) and thus exempt from the prohibition against edit-warring, while the subsequent four (, , and ) were not vandalism but reflected a content disagreement,
• Ohnoitsjamie did not avail themselves of the opportunity presented by this report to revert themselves, and
• Ohnoitsjamie's blocking of the IP editor they edit-warred with is a clear abuse of administrator tools, which were used to win the content dispute and the edit war.

I am not unblocking the IP because they edit-warred as well and have not made an unblock request. Because blocks of administrators tend to be controversial, I am submitting this block for review at WP:ANI#WP:AN3.  Sandstein  13:06, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you Sandstein, for taking on this potentially controversial work. --Diannaa 15:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think Jamie bit a newbie (69.116.44.219 (talk · contribs)) pretty badly, in addition to the edit warring. I left a note on 69.116's talk page. It also seemed excessive that Jamie used a block template that doesn't explain how to request an unblock. The person had no clue about how to act in a content dispute, but was IMHO not a vandal. 69.111.194.167 (talk) 22:22, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Opinion I posted this here because I thought it should be brought to the attention of the admin community for discussion (and because they know rules/procedures/consensus better than I do). Although I agree (and proposed) that ONJ was out of order breaking 3RR and blocking a newbie he was in an edit war with without trying to resolve the issue through appropriate methods, I want to voice some general criticism of the block. I agree that in principle the rules on 3RR should apply equally whether the user is an anonymous newcomer or an admin with 100,000 edits as ONJ is, however I question the logic of imposing a 24h ban on an admin in ONJ's position. My understanding of the block policy is that it is not supposed to be punitive but rather to prevent disruption/vandalism of the encyclopaedia. I don't really see how blocking ONJ for a day is going to improve the encyclopaedia since a) The edit war is over b) ONJ will be aware of 3RR and having a reprimand or warning from other admins would probably serve to remind him to be more careful in the future about identifying POV pushing. I think that we as a community should either trust someone with admin tools and accept that they are a reasonable and beneficial editor or we shouldn't (I am not calling into question ONJ's general ability or conduct) and find it a bit of a contradiction that the result of this incident is to say that we don't think ONJ would make useful contributions in the next day but we think that tomorrow he'll be a highly trusted member of the community again, worthy of admin tools. I would also like to make clear to ONJ that I didn't report the incident here so as to grind an axe or call for him to be blocked, rather I wanted to note my objection to his conduct and have some other admins comment and decide the appropriate outcome. Pi (Talk to me! ) 03:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

  It's all well and good to say a block shouldn't be applied for bad behavior, but any horse and buggy driver without the bite of a whip is going nowhere. The same applies in human circles; if the law is not enforced, it is almost always ignored. ONJ has been asked before to stop things (as shown at the corresponding WP:ANI thread), without effect. My universal experience on Misplaced Pages has been that endless warnings for behavior do nothing if not eventually enforced with a block. Otherwise people don't get the idea that they're not above the rules. A block is thus most certainly preventative, IMHO. Magog the Ogre (talk) 06:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:216.120.248.83 (Result: User:216.120.248.83 blocked for 24 hours; reverting multiple editors )

Page: List of The Glades episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.120.248.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Editor has thus far ignored the discussion, and prefers to discuss via edit summary

Comments:
I may be starting this too soon, but it seems to me we're pretty clear-cut here: this IP editor popped up roughly 24 hours ago to install one particular edit on a small number of television list articles where it had recently been removed. His editing style is aggressive, and until he met with some resistance on the article in question, did not provide an edit summary for any of his edits. He ignored the discussion on the article's talk page on his last revert, and appears unwilling to work to consensus. He has four warnings on his talk page, to which he has not responded, and which have no effect except to possibly make him more aggressive in his editing (he's subsequently reverted comparable edits on a number of other pages). Some stronger action is needed to get his attention and get his editing on track.

The basis for the reverts of his edits is straightforward: MOS:HASH is unequivocal that the № symbol should never be used to replace the word number in text, and that # should be used under limited conditions. There has been widespread recent addition of №/# to separate columns in television article lists that contain the episode number and life-of-series number of episodes. Aside from the MOS issue, their use is nonsensical: they simply tell the reader that each column contains numbers, but not what the numbers mean. Use of this numbering style has consistently been removed in GA and FA articles, and I along with a couple other editors, have attempted to replace them with meaningful labels as we encounter them, brooking resistance from two editors more concerned with how the lists appear on their particular monitors than with a label that is meaningful to an encyclopedic standard. (See discussion at Talk:List of Covert Affairs episodes)

I have concerns this may be a sockpuppet of a registered editor, but no foundation to pursue it beyond a suspicion. However, this IP is far to knowledgeable about reference articles, FA and other elements of Misplaced Pages for an editor on board for barely 24 hours. Drmargi (talk) 17:16, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Bradford Guitar Boy reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result:Blocked 72 hours )

Page: Bradford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bradford Guitar Boy (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:This is the third time this editor has been referred here for inserting this piece of text. He utterly refuses to go with talk page consensus which has included an RfC. This follows the Bradford page being locked for two weeks(on his version).--Charles (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 72 hours - 3rd tme = 3 days to think about it. Should there be further addition against consensus, then a page ban may be in order, such page ban being logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:76.232.253.45 reported by User:Toddy1 (Result: already semi-protected)

Page: Armenian language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.232.253.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• Edit that he keeps reverting

--Toddy1 (talk) 10:50, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

• Page protected Semi-protected by Kwamikagami (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Magog the Ogre (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) reported by User:Avanu (Result:No action; 3RR was not violated)

Page: Pauline mysticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

In the section below, link to diffs of the user's reverts. Add more lines if needed. Dates are optional. Remember, you do need *4* reverts to violate WP:3RR, although edit warring has no such strict rule.

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pauline_mysticism&diff=425610901&oldid=425533937
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pauline_mysticism&diff=425671697&oldid=425665619
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Pauline_mysticism&diff=425707612&oldid=425692980

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Edit_Warring_at_Pauline_mysticism

(The other editor, Crews Giles, has also been notified to be careful not to edit war.)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Pauline_mysticism

Comments:
Looks like editor Crews Giles was trying to PROD the article and Richard decided to remove the tag without comment. Crews seems to be providing lots of discussion on the Talk page, and Richard provided no explanation for initial revert, then proceeded to use his original revert as justification for later 2 reverts. Also appears that Crews has asked Richard to provide some discussion on why he is making these changes and Richard is not responsive. -- Avanu (talk) 20:10, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Comment: A PROD can be removed at any time by any editor, and should not be reverted. It would be nice if there were a discussion, but it's not required. I've re-removed the PROD since an editor objects. The next step should be in filing an WP:AFD. Dayewalker (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You don't need three reverts to 'edit war'. And additionally, its kind of poor sportsmanship to mess with the content in favor of one side or another when this is being discussed here. -- Avanu (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (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. Three reverts does not cross the line. (Dayewalker, we must have edit conflicted, because actually I re-removed the PROD. :) I've explained the policy to the tagger.) Moonriddengirl 20:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

No editor "objected". Simply removing an edit without explanation doesn't signify what the edit is for. That is the problem here. An editor making pushy changes over and over without explaining himself, while the other editor is asking for comment in the Talk page. -- Avanu (talk) 21:23, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Policy does not require an explanation; it says "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{proposed deletion}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." --Moonriddengirl 21:38, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Hopefully, you understand that the page you refer to is not "policy", but a guideline. And in line with overall guidelines on Misplaced Pages, there is 'community' and 'consensus'. Anyone is allowed to object to the PROD, but we end up in silly territory if we say that people *SHOULD NOT* explain their actions to other editors. In fact, the majority of community guidelines say we *SHOULD* explain when we do things, that is what the Edit Summary is for. So, despite it being 'approvable', it is not at all in line with community/collaborative editing. -- Avanu (talk) 22:02, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're mistaken. The page is appropriately tagged "policy" at the top: Misplaced Pages:Proposed deletion. Whether it is in line with community/collaborative editing or not, it is not required to give an explanation for removing a PROD tag (although it is recommended); it is, however, forbidden to restore the tag when it is removed. --Moonriddengirl 22:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Did I somehow ask this to be a 3RR review? Because I thought it said 'edit warring'. Hmmm. -- Avanu (talk) 22:36, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome to take it up at WP:ANI if you disagree with my administrative decision. --Moonriddengirl 22:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Its not possible for me to disagree, because I never claimed that RAN violated 3RR. You closed this after continually arguing that with me, when that wasn't even my assertion in the first place. -- Avanu (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a peculiar perspective on events. I'm an uninvolved administrator declining to take action on a noticeboard. I am not arguing with you and have not been arguing with you, unless you count pointing out your obvious error in describing WP:PROD as a "guideline" as arguing. Nobody crossed the 3RR threshold, and there is no edit war on this article...now. Richard should not have removed the PROD notice repeatedly, but should have explained to the other contributor that he was in good faith violating policy by restoring it. The PROD notice is appropriately removed, and there is nothing to do. --Moonriddengirl 22:46, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

By 'argue', I was meaning debate, although argue does express a more acrimonious situation. My mistake there. My reason for bringing this here was to encourage Mr. Norton to communicate with other editors, as he has a bad habit of making sometimes controversial or unexplained edits and moving on. You framed it as a 3RR (which it was not), rather than as an Edit War (which it was), and then summarily dismissed it (correctly, if one assumed it was 3RR, which it wasn't). Since you dealt with it this way, it is hard to say that anything positive was accomplished beyond letting Crews Giles know not to edit war also. But since I already notified him, and he was communicating and looking for answers already, it doesn't solve the other side of this problem. -- Avanu (talk) 22:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

The reason I note that it was not a 3RR is because a 3RR is the bright line for blocking, unless the reversion is exempted. Nobody crossed that threshhold. A block to prevent disruption at this article might be appropriate if edit warring were ongoing or, even if not, in some other circumstances, but the fact is that Richard Norton was right that he is entitled to remove the PROD notice without explanation and that, once it is removed, it is not to be restored. Blocking him for not communicating when policy is behind him is not likely to encourage him to engage more collegially in the future. I spoke to him about communication at the time I addressed this listing. If you think that more is needed, your best bet is probably to pursue other means of dispute resolution, such as WP:RfC/U. --Moonriddengirl 23:03, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Incidentally, I would hope that blocking isn't the only (or even advisable) option in such a situation. I don't care to see anyone blocked if we can help it. I just want editors to take a moment to communicate if the situation needs it. -- Avanu (talk) 01:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:76.67.18.192 reported by User:Aditya Kabir (Result: )

Page: South Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:76.67.18.192 (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:

Comment This anon keeps reverting a simple sentence from the lead of the article. When asked for reasons this person goes on to very complicated logic fogging and starts serious personal attacks. This person is so immune to discussion that on the article talk page his/her most reply so far was pure bullying, which is further enhanced by edit summaries. in a bit more than two days time the same thing was reverted 6 times, four in less than 24 hours. No use warning this person, as the anon is threatening me with the three revert rule on the article talk page. A a very stupid wheel war and a very nasty stance, if I may say so. Aditya 03:54, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Aditya Kabir reported by User:76.67.18.192 (Result: )

Page: South Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Aditya Kabir (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Also note:

• Additional revert:

Please note that the links provided by AK demonstrate edits over a multiday period, amidst discussion, regarding a content dispute: namely, a point regarding the undue weight of indicating that South Asia and Indian subcontinent are unequivocally the same, which is already dealt with in a lower section of the article ('sometimes'). Another editor first discarded them as 'ip nonsense'. This editor, in his revert warring, removed mine and other's edits in the 1st revert noted, and has not otherwise addressed points discussed on the talk page, comments obtusely, and simply proceeds to belittle, call names (referring me to a 'brain' essay, and mockingly referring to me as 'dear', and 'gurudeva' on talk page), level accusations, and babble with less-than-par English fluency. I suspect the editor is a South Asian (directly or indirectly) who is attempting to insinuate a political stance about the propriety and equivalency of using 'South Asia' instead of 'Indian subcontinent'. No matter -- the droning passive-aggression of this editor is vexing. This editor has apparently also morphed and POV-pushed these notions at 'Indian subcontinent' in a similar manner over months, advocating the merging of the articles and doing so long ago without consensus or process; observe article history. And, so, further discussion with this editor seems futile. It is also ironic (but unsurprising) that the editor indicates I was warningthreatening him about 3RR, and then reports me for doing so. 76.67.18.192 (talk) 11:02, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

See that thing flying in your vicinity? Could be a boomerang... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Box2112 (Result: )

Page: Astroturfing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (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:

I'm not an American, so I don't really understand your politics. But I was reading a political blog last week (I didn't save the url - sorry) and found an attack on Misplaced Pages for bias, instancing the "political" section of the Astroturfing article. A quick look at the section indicated only Republican party was mentioned, which looked dodgy. A look at the talk page revealed long-term concerns by various editors. So I added the POV-section tag, and added a suggestion as to how to move forward. I can't fix the section, of course -- don't know enough about US politics! --; but marking it with the tag will defuse criticism.

The tag was reverted three times by Xenophrenic, without any attempt at discussion. It looks from the talk page as if he is the person responsible for the bias, and there might be a violation of WP:OWN as well. Can someone please deal with him? A POV tag encouraging people to address a perceived issue is probably the right approach. Deleting the tag does not sound right. Box2112 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The tag was inappropriate, if you know of instances of "the other side" engaging in astroturf, please add it! Otherwise, the POV tag is mute as you're asking to add information which nobody can verify exists. I've removed the tag. Also, this is not a 3rr violation, and no warning was left on the user talk page. BelloWello (talk) 16:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Why is the tag inappropriate? Whether something is POV is not dependent on whether I try to resolve the POV.

Not sure where the other stuff comes from: I didn't assert that it was a 3rr violation, but editwarring. And if you look at the bottom of the user talk page, you will see the warning. :-) Box2112 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree with BelloWello's reasoning. Tags can be a topic to discuss, but you don't say that they invalid simply because the tagger did not fix the imbalance.North8000 (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

"Why is the tag inappropriate?" Please see NPOV dispute "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." Mojoworker (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Sorry mate, but I need to correct the misinformation in your report here. I haven't reverted more than 3 times. I haven't reverted "without any attempt at discussion"; you'll note the instructions to "see talk" in my edit summaries, as well as the lengthy discussion on the talk page. You'll also note that I haven't edited that article in 2 days, and your edit warring has resumed against other editors. You folks can take it up with them. (This is an interesting turn of events from Box2112, who has fewer than a couple dozen edits over just a few days, and claims to have been directed here by a Misplaced Pages attack-site). Xenophrenic (talk) 18:43, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the situation at the article in question but have been engaged in gentle friendly arm wrestling with Xenophrenic with similar issues for months at a similar article, where "astroturfing" has been a hot topic. (Tea Party movement) But since it usually involving them using the rules to POV the article (a common tactic that works due to poorly written rules) there probably aren't any explicit wp:violations (except IMO one 1RR vio. that I didn't report) because I am more interested in building a consensus to fix that mess of an article. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:15, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. In fact what is the point of a tag, if it can only be added when someone fixes the problem? (after which it is unnecessary). I think perhaps BelloWello was addressing which side of the argument he felt was wrong, not whether an editwar was in progress? It's curious to see how the rules are used on wikipedia. Even when they are clear. Box2112 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:75.64.77.105 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: )

Page: Alvin Plantinga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 75.64.77.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 18:03, 15 April 2011 (edit summary: "/* External links */ added link to paper")
2. 03:57, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424245523 by Hrafn (talk)")
3. 03:57, 18 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424245412 by Hrafn (talk)")
4. 01:38, 19 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424638844 by Hrafn (talk)")
5. 15:49, 25 April 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 424245523 by Hrafn (talk) this is noteworthy Plantinga")

• Diff of warning: here
• Additional warning on WP:EL: here

Comments: Not a 3rr, but a clear edit war. This doesn't seem to be letting up, and it would be good to handle before a PP if possible. Thanks.

—  — Jess· Δ♥ 17:00, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Medeis reported by User:TreasuryTag (Result: )

Page: Silence (Doctor Who) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Medeis (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: (editor is well aware of WP:3RR, though regrettably less so of WP:SUBST)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: – to be fair, Medeis (talk · contribs) has been participating in the discussion, but has since decided to revert some of the controversial material back into the article.

Comments: I think that just about covers all the bases. ╟─TreasuryTag►District Collector─╢ 17:20, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the "fourth revert" is not a revert, and reflects TreasuryTag's very own suggestion: "Far be it for me to suggest a compromise, but if you are unhappy ... then you could simply add that fact in without embellishment? For instance, "The Silence appeared in The Impossible Astronaut in 2011," perhaps?" on the talk page. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

To be "fair" I am the one who started the relevant discussion on the talk page. What the complainant has done is wage a one man quest to have the article deleted and resorted to threats Revision as of 12:07, 25 April 2011 before making any suggestions Revision as of 12:58, 25 April 2011 on the article's talk page - an argument which he obviously didn't mean seriously, since he filed this AN3 when I followed his very suggestion. μηδείς (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

For your information, it is a revert, because it yet again adds into the article the material which was removed four times by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs) and myself between us. Nor did I suggest that you insert material stating that that was the Silence's first on-screen appearance. My compromise suggestion was simply to note that it was an appearance. ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 17:26, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

And also, I'm not sure why, because I've "waged a one-man quest to have the article deleted" (or, "started a deletion discussion about the article," as normal people say) that entitles you to violate the 3RR? ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 17:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:217.39.85.243 reported by User:O Fenian (Result: )

Page: Derry City F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 217.39.85.243 (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: Talk:Derry City F.C.#Ulster Banner

Comments:

User:188.138.72.121 reported by Nableezy (Result: Range block)

Page: Palestinian nationalism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 188.138.72.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 19:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 17:48, 25 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")
2. 17:59, 25 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 425858728 by Nableezy (talk)")
3. 18:58, 25 April 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "")

• Diff of warning: here

All articles in Arab-Israeli conflict topic area are subject to a 1 revert rule (the rule does not apply to reverts of edits made by IPs, see here. This IP has now reverted 3 times. The IP is also the subject of an open SPI. nableezy - 19:09, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This back and forth is fun and all, but surely one should be made aware of here before they are sanctioned for it?! Right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.138.72.121 (talk) 19:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You were told of the restriction prior to your 3rd revert, and the template says "Editors who violate this 1RR restriction may be blocked without warning by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense." nableezy - 19:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Told by who? You? I had no idea what you were blabbering on about. Not evyerone has been here for 10 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.138.72.121 (talk) 19:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The IP's range got blocked as an anonymising proxy. -- zzuuzz 19:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

User:Box2112 reported by User:BelloWello (Result: )

Page: Astroturfing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Box2112 (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: n/a, user is well aware of 3RR limitations as is evident by his reporting another editor above.

Comments:

User reported had reported another user for "edit waring" above, which currently has "no action," however, the user had not reverted more than three times. Seeing the editor's report above, I made my first (and only edit to the page) removing the unnecessary tag. User:Box2112 made his fifth edit adding the tag, the fourth such revert following my action. As evident by his reprot, User:Box2112 knows our edit warring policy and brazenly ignored it. BelloWello (talk) 19:23, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with you that the tag is unnecessary, and feel it should stay there until the situation is resolved, or at least for now. A tag is not a big deal. Tags are supposed to be on articles to draw people to discuss issues on the talk page, which is exactly what Box2112 is doing now, so please assume good faith. Will leave this open for a second opinion. - filelakeshoe 19:45, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I already removed it again after adding the information that Box2112 requested and because WP:NPOVD says "Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort." You can put it back in if you'd like. I did an extensive search for any reliable source representing an opposing view and came up empty. Then did another extensive search and found an Indiana University study of astroturfing (that has several published papers based upon it) citing several egregious examples of astroturfing on Twitter and all of them are promoting the same political side. There may be a reason the article seems to have a POV, since counter-examples seem to be scarce or non-existent. I've spent far too many hours on that article today and I need to get some real work done... But, I find it a bit strange that for someone who's been here only four days and has just 20 article edits, User:Box2112 seems to be a pretty good Wikilawyer. Mojoworker (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Filelakeshoe, that's fine if you disagree with me, however, you are not supposed to violate 3RR even if you are right. Hence, regardless of WHAT he was edit warring over and who was right, the fact remains that knowingly he crossed the bright red line called 3RR. BelloWello (talk) 20:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

This is very nasty. I have not reverted anyone's edit. I have merely readded mine. The users whom I reported have now deleted the link to this page from the talk page. Now BelloWello attacks me -- not the edit-warrers! Nasty. Box2112 (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring