Misplaced Pages

:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Physicman123 (talk | contribs) at 22:55, 3 March 2008 (Report that administrators are vandalizing my contributions intentionally ...). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 22:55, 3 March 2008 by Physicman123 (talk | contribs) (Report that administrators are vandalizing my contributions intentionally ...)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Moveprotected

Do not continue a dispute on this page. Please keep on topic.
Administrators: Please do not hesitate to move disputes to user talk pages.
Your report will not be dealt with if you do not follow the instructions for new reports correctly.

Noticeboards
Misplaced Pages's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General
Articles,
content
Page handling
User conduct
Other
Category:Misplaced Pages noticeboards
    Welcome to the edit warring noticeboard Shortcuts Update this page

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

    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
    Edit warring is a behavior, typically exemplified by the use of repeated edits to "win" a content dispute. It is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle. Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism. Administrators often must make a judgment call to identify edit warring when cooling disputes. Administrators currently use several measures to determine if a user is edit warring.
    Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)
    An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Violations of this rule normally attract blocks of at least 24 hours. Any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation. See here for exemptions.

    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.
    Click here to create a new report
    Noticeboard archives
    Administrators' (archives, search)
    349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358
    359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368
    Incidents (archives, search)
    1158 1159 1160 1161 1162 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167
    1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1175 1176 1177
    Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
    472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481
    482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491
    Arbitration enforcement (archives)
    328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337
    338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347
    Other links

    Violations

    Please place new reports at the BOTTOM. If you do not see your report, you can search the archives for it.


    User:IronAngelAlice reported by User:NCdave (Result: )

    Crisis_pregnancy_center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). IronAngelAlice (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


    Reinserted "The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers use psychological pressure to discourage women from aborting" in the intro
    Reinserted "fundamentalist" adjective

    Note: 4th, 5th & 6th reverts are consecutive.

    • Diff of warning about edit warring: 20:36, 25 February 2008 Warned against edit warring, on her Talk page
    • Diff of 3RR warning: 01:37, 26 February 2008 warned that she had reverted 3 times today, on her Talk page
    • Diff of her reply: 01:42, 26 February 2008 she replied "Please stop spamming my talk page"
    • 1, 5 & 6 minutes after that reply, she reverted again (her 4th; more if you count consecutive edits)

    User IronAngelAlice is working to systematically tilt the article to her POV, by inserting accusations and criticism of CPCs, including patently false information, over and over, and also by deleting balancing information. Examples of the false information she has repeatedly inserted, even after being told it was in error, are the "fundamentalist" label for the Christian supporters of CPCs, and the claim that "most CPCs... receive the majority of their money from Bush Administration faith based initiatives.". In many cases she has reinserted these accusations even after other editors have pointed out that the information is false.

    Additionally, CheckUser confirms that IronAngelAlice has a history using one or more accounts abusively. Her previous account, User:Bremskraft, is blocked indefinitely. NCdave (talk) 04:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC), 23:30, 1 March 2008 (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. — Consecutive reverts do not count toward the 3RR limit. Also, it looks like both editors are partially warring on the page; it is suggested that future discussion be taken to the talk page or it will be protected and/or both editors blocked. --slakr 18:18, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Take another look. Perhaps I was unclear: the 4th, 5th & 6th reverts were consecutive with each other, not consecutive with the 3rd revert. I'm sorry if what I wrote was ambiguous. Consecutive reverts together count as one revert, not as zero reverts. This is a very clear 3RR violation. Reverts 4, 5 & 6, together, count as one revert. They were not consecutive with the 3rd revert, and none of the other reverts were consecutive. That's four clear, non-consecutive reverts in six hours.
    1. 19:43 25 Feb
    2. 21:46 25 Feb
    3. 00:05 26 Feb
    4. 01:43-02:08 26 Feb
    What's more, the reverts in the 1:43-2:08 time period were done immediately after IronAngelAlice replied to the note warning her that she had done three reverts ("please stop spamming my talk page"). They were, in other words, no accident. They were done in deliberate defiance of WP:3RR. NCdave (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
    Reopened for someone else to take a look at or for me to look at a little later. I might have missed something as I was feeling like crap earlier. :P Cheers :) --slakr 01:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    I'm sorry that I wasn't clear, Slakr. I can see how you could easily read what I wrote as indicating that the 4th revert was consecutive with the 3rd, which wasn't what I meant. Your confusion is the result of my ambiguity. Please accept my apology. Also, I hope you feel better soon. NCdave (talk) 03:49, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    Please also check the talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Crisis_pregnancy_center#Psalm_139_Project NCDave has tried to insert advertisements into the article. These were part of the reverts.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 02:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC) After reading more about 3R rules, this may be irrelevant. I'm not sure.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 03:31, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    That's untrue, IronAngelAlice. NCdave (talk) 03:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    Well, I have to defend myself a bit. Again, this may be off topic, but this is what you repeatedly inserted on the Crisis Pregnancy Center Page:

    The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, the largest Protestant denomination in the United States, is working to equip more CPCs with ultrasound machines, through what they call the Psalm 139 Project. "If wombs had windows, people would be much more reticent to abort babies because they would be forced to confront the evident humanity of the baby from very early gestation onward," says ERLC President Richard Land on Project 139 web site.

    According to the Heidi Group, a Christian organization that advises crisis pregnancy centers, most women who visit CPCs and see their babies through the use of ultrasound technology decide against abortion.

    Earlier I was pretty sure I did not violate 3R. Now I'm confused. Though NCdave posted a comment on my talk page accusing me of edit-warring, he did not post links to any of the reverts he found contentious on my talk page, nor did I get a warning about the posting on this page, and there were many edits not just reverts on both my part and NCdave's.
    Though I continue to disagree with it, I self-reverted the revert that I made regarding Pro-choice websites. The Congressional report is now categorized as a "Pro-Choice" site per NCDave's edit.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 04:17, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    Say what? You didn't know you were reverting, Alice? Your own edit summaries were:
    19:43, 25 February 2008 (Undid revision 193993513 by NCdave (talk))
    21:46, 25 February 2008 (Undid revision 194021502 Just because an individual is pro-choice, that doesn't mean the facts s/he states are biased)
    00:05, 26 February 2008 (Undid revision 194036463 by NCdave (talk) Let's take each section one by one)
    I then warned you that you had done three reverts ("You've reverted three times today...") at 01:37.
    Alice, I know you read that, because you replied five minutes later: "...Please stop spamming my talk page." One minute after that you defiantly did revert #4 (reinserting the statement that "CPC's are made to look like medical clinics, not religious organizations"), followed quickly by many consecutive additional reverts.
    Now you say you've (finally!) self-reverted? But you only unreverted one tiny part.
    Also, here is where I told you about the posting on this page. NCdave (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    NCdave, you didn't list the links to the problem edits on my talk page. And we had both been editing the David Reardon page where there were reverts as well. However, confusion on my part is not an adequate excuse, so I self-reverted the revert I did at 21:46 even though you have only listed three contentious reverts.

    I made changes to the crisis pregnancy center page last night that I believe will be consensus building. Please look at what was done, and we can discuss them on the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

    You have un-reverted only a very tiny portion of the flurry of prohibited partial reverts that you defiantly commenced making immediately after I warned you that you had already done 3 reverts. NCdave (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    What I reverted was one of your exact complaints. I have made several edits (listed on the talk page) over many days. You kept some and rejected others. And, yesterday I made more changes that I think you will be agreeable to. Since you keep some edits and reject others, why don't you respond on the talk page as to what you feel should be reverted.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
    I have done so. NCdave (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, IronAngelAlice's disruptive behavior is not confined to the Crisis Pregnancy Center article. Over on the Abortion and mental health article, Equazcion complained in frustration that, "you two have completely ruined this article...." Alice's response was to accuse him of "bullying," which prompted Saranghae honey (who shares Alice's pro-choice POV) and Ferrylodge (who does not) to both express their agreement with Equazcion. Alice then accused Equazcion of "attempting to malign my character." NCdave (talk) 13:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    Unfortunately, your editing has not been constructive either. Both users seem aggravated by each other resulting in an edit war that leading to a 3RR violation. I think it is best to warn her and ask both of them to step aside a bit from editing the article. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 14:16, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, Saranghae/мirаgeinred is miffed with me about something else. I thought I was being gentle with her, but I guess not gentle enough.  :-( NCdave (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    LOL You seriously made my day and I'm not even being sarcastic. мirаgeinred سَراب ٭ (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    Um, shouldn't ad hominem personal attacks be frowned upon at Misplaced Pages? --Potato dude42 (talk) 20:09, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    IronAlice's reverts #1, #2 & #3 were full reverts done by clicking on "undo," over a period of about 4.5 hours:

    • 1st revert: 19:43, 25 February 2008
    • 2nd revert: 21:46, 25 February 2008
    • 3rd revert: 00:05, 26 February 2008

    Her subsequent reverts were all partial reverts, but there were many of them.

    Here's a chronological list of IronAngelAlice's edits/reverts which she did after her first three full reverts, but all within 24 hours (actually, within 7 hours!) of revert #1. Since these were all consecutive, they all count as one great big fourth revert. But they are all in flagrant & intentional violation of WP:3RR, as all were done within one hour of her scornful reply to my warning on her talk page (telling her that she'd already done three reverts).

    What's more, despite multiple appeals on the article talk page, and even a recommendation on her own talk page by her close ally, she has declined to un-revert most of them.

    In the following list, the revert prefixed with "-" was subsequently self-un-reverted by Alice, and the revert prefixed with "x" was not un-reverted but was subsequently changed by Alice to a different wording. The reverts prefixed with "+" were not self-un-reverted at all, and are still in the article.


    This is revert #4 (six hours after revert #1, and one minute after her scornful reply to my warning):
    01:43, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Reverts:

    • - Reinserted POV-heavy accusation that, "Though they generally do not provide medical care, CPC's are made to look like medical clinics, not religious organizations." (self-reverted)
    • + Deleted heartlink.org ref
    • + Deleted "Some offer post-abortion counseling services, or refer clients to organizations which do so, such as Project Rachel" and ref to Project Rachel
    An explanation was given in the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    01:47, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Reverts:

    • x Reinserted "Fundamentalist" appellation (later changed to "conservative Evangelical... and Roman Catholic")
    We came to a consensus about this days ago, and the name was thus changed to "Conservative Christian".--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • + Deleted www.care-net.org/aboutus/ ref


    01:47, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Not a revert (inserted "and Roman Catholic" appellation)


    01:53, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Reverts:


    01:58, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Revert:

    • + Deleted entire Psalm 139 Project section, and Baptist Press article ref
    An explanation was given in the talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


    01:58, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Revert:

    • + Deleted entire Medical Services section, including
    http://www.nifla.org/faqs.asp ref, and
    http://www.epigee.org/pregnancy/centers.html ref, and
    http://www.wpclinic.org/services/referrals/ ref, and
    http://www.cookevillecpc.org/ultrasound.php ref
    An explanation was given in the talk page. A consensus with outside editors was built not to include these at this time.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    02:05, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Reverts:

    • + Deleted entire Policies section, including
    http://birthright.reachlocal.net/htmpages/philo.htm ref, and
    http://www.heartbeatinternational.org/commitment.htm ref, and
    http://opa.osophs.dhhs.gov/titlex/statutory%20rape_state%20laws_lewin.pdf ref
    • + Reinserted POV-heavy "Disinformation" section title
    Per this discussion it has been changed to "Henry Waxman report on disinformation." There was no prior discussion about this on talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • + Reinserted expanded version of the POV-heavy Waxman accusation that most CPCs provide "false or misleading information about the health risks of an abortion"

    02:08, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:

    • + Deleted the condensed/compromise version of Waxman's accusations
    There was no consensus, unfortunately.----

    02:08, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Revert:

    This was discussed on the talk page, and the link was added to the external links section.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    02:09, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Revert:

    • + Again renamed "criticism" section to "Legal and legislative actions against CPC's"


    02:10, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Not a revert, but introduced an inaccuracy: inserted new subsection headings, including one which incorrectly called "Choose Life" license plates "State Funding," when actually they are a form of donation which is also a revenue source for State gov't

    I agree, and per consensus, it was agreed this would be "donations" rather than "state funding."--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    02:12, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    I don't think this was a revert, but inserted POV-biased misleading "United States Government Information" section header for Waxman report


    02:19, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Revert:

    • + Reinserted inaccurate "fundamentalist" appellation in another place, this time to describe the churches that support CPCs.

    But also corrected an inaccuracy in the article, by deleting the phrase, "or sometimes the government."


    Per our consensus, "fundamentalist" was changed to "conservative" with lengthy discussion on talk page.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    02:25, 26 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:
    Not a revert (removed a pair of parenthesis)


    If I counted correctly that's 18 different consecutive reverts, all done within 7 hours of revert #1, and all done immediately after Alice's scornful reply to my warning that she had already done three reverts. Despite the self-reverting that she has claimed here, 16 of the 18 reverts are still intact, still in the article.

    In those 18 reverts, she deleted 14 of the 34 references in the article. She has restored none of them.

    However, she eventually added this link to an opinion column in a student newspaper, her "reliable source" to justify her repeatedly reinserted POV-heavy accusation that, "The counseling services offered by crisis pregnancy centers use psychological pressure to discourage women from aborting."
    03:09, 27 February 2008 IronAngelAlice diff:

    That link is not contained in the article. It was discussed on the talk page, but is not included in the article. I, therefore, removed that sentence.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 20:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Since Alice is unwilling to self-revert, I'll do it. I'll keep the good stuff, such as the correction of an inaccuracy which she made in her 02:19, 26 February 2008 edit. And, of course, I'll explain it on the article Talk page, first. NCdave (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    I've done so. NCdave (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    NCdave, perhaps both of our time would be better spent going to content dispute resolution by asking other editors who have been involved with the page to weigh in, or by requesting mediation. Clearly we have differing visions of what the article should include, as well as differing ideas on how to build consensus.--IronAngelAlice (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:74.237.114.108 reported by User:Enigmaman (Result: warned)

    Jonathan Vilma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). 74.237.114.108 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 06:31, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


    User:Jotel reported by User:Darwinek (Result: warned )

    Tymbark (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Jotel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


    User:Jotel edit-warring on article created by him. He didn't evaluate his edit a single time. I don't know why he didn't want to explain his edits, maybe violation of WP:OWN. Darwinek (talk) 16:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    User:Lil' mouse 3 reported by User:Coemgenus (Result: warned )

    Louis XIV of France (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Lil' mouse 3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    Lil Mouse has reverted this section four times to include material the other editors have deemed tangential or irrelevant. Coemgenus 17:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    I did not keep count of how many times I reverted, being very upset by what I perceive to be POV-pushing by likeminded editors, in defiance of WP rules, which they did not bother to exactly quote on the Talk page, as requested in my edit summaries here and here. Also, as mitigating circumstance, Coemgenus should have given me the mandatory warning at my 3rd revert to remind me of the 3RR: he did not do so. Without this warning, I can say that he acted in bad faith in his reporting, waiting for me to lose track of my number of edits so that he can get me blocked. Please, do not condone such sneaky behavior, especially in somebody who acts in defiance of other WP rules to push his POV. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:18, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    Either way, it does appear to me that you have violated the 3RR. Inspite of whether you believe your opinion is correct or not, Misplaced Pages content can not be damaged in this disruptive manner. Rudget. 17:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    But I completely lost track of the count and, most importantly, he didn't give me the mandatory 3rd revert warning. Doesn't his lack of fair warning cast doubts over his motives and invalidate his request? I have proved above he doesn't care about WP rules, all he cares is to push his POV by all means necessary. Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 17:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    If you know when a warning is required, you should know when the count is sufficient enough to violate the 3RR. Rudget. 17:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Warned – first and foremost, there is no mandatory warning, and regardless of the number of edits you make, you can still be blocked for edit warring if you repeatedly revert others' edits. Ideally, you can simply follow the one revert rule, which is a totally informal, simplified way of never having to count your reverts again. :) In any case, consider this your only warning, and please try to discuss changes on talk pages and/or seek dispute resolution. --slakr 17:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
    Thank you very much for not blocking me. I will be much more mindful of these rules from now on. Thank you very much! Lil' mouse 3 (talk) 18:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    User:Baseball Bugs reported by User:TheRealFennShysa (Result:Warned)

    Superman music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    This user has decided that another editor is using Misplaced Pages for self-promotion, and has wholesale deleted all contributions from that user on the article in question. While there may be an element of truth to that, many of the editors contributions are factual, cited, and about a notable new release. Editor is adamant that his view must be accepted, even though multiple editors have asked that he stop reverting. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    It is a technical violation of the three revert rule, but Baseball Bugs does have a legitimate point to pursue in regarding the expansion of the page as potentially a conflict of interest. In view of the fact that discussion is ongoing, I do not think the best interests of the encyclopaedia are served by blocking. I also note that the report here immediately followed the warning, and that Baseball Bugs did not revert following the warning. I have left him a note to explain the situation. Sam Blacketer (talk) 21:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    User:Karaku reported by User:The Rogue Penguin (Result:96 hours)

    Code Lyoko 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Karaku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to: 12:33, February 29, 2008
      • The tags and cats may differ slightly, but the content never changes.

    This user is continually reverting to his preferred version with uncivil edit summaries, attempting to use the {{in use}} template to excuse his behavior. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:08, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    I was going to come here and report the same user:

    — Save_Us † 21:27, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    Clear cut case. Due to previous edit-warring, and associated incivility on this case, I've blocked for 96 hours. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

    User:Freelifelegal reported by User:Barek (Result: 24 hours)

    FreeLife (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Freelifelegal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    • Previous version reverted to:


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    The edits by this user have been undone by multiple parties due to WP:COI. While some of the users edits may be valid, others appear to be nothing other than advertising/marketing material. The user has attempted to start a discussions on the talk page requesting changes but when they were not immediately forthcoming the user began edit warring and stated at one point "I can make this change back to a balanced entry all day." The user has been warned about WP:COI and WP:3RR, and has had WP:U brought up to them. After the 3rr warning, they were also directed towards using third opinion or request comment on the article to address their issues with the article, but they chose to make a fourth revert shortly after that rather than use provided alternate tools to engage in discussion. The user claims to be correcting errors, and to have received approval to make them via an email from Jimbo Wales (see article's talk page). - Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:19, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    Decision: Blocked for 24 hours. TigerShark (talk) 23:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Rockybiggs reported by User:84.71.249.5‎ (Result: Article semi-protected)

    Akrotiri and Dhekelia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Rockybiggs (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


    • Diff of 3RR warning:

    This stubborn British editor with an aversion to the Cypriot government is repeatedly deleting a sourced statement regarding the new Cypriot president's stance on this territory on the grounds that it is "Greek POV". 84.71.249.5 (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    Although the reported user has reverted a large number of times over the past couple of days they have not reverted since being warned. The IP who left this report presumably knew about the 3RR policy, as they left the warning. Although this IP has not reverted more than three times, it and very similar IPs have been engaged in edit warring with the reported user, I have therefore semi-protected the article. TigerShark (talk) 23:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    Can you please revert to the last version, this sourced statement is clearly not "Greek POV" as Rockybiggs unreasonably asserts. --81.79.239.155 (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    Sorry but it would be inappropriate for me to revert the page following protection. If you feel that changes are required to the article, please discuss them on its talk page. TigerShark (talk) 00:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    But Rockybiggs is being totally unreasonable, he describes any reference to the Cypriot government position as "Greek POV". --81.79.239.155 (talk) 00:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    As i have insisted on from the start there was a discussion on this matter on the talk page, and the General Concensus was not to have these comments mentioned. Any further agruements should be addressed on the talk pageRockybiggs (talk) 10:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Chrisjnelson reported by User:Ksy92003 (Result: 72 hours)

    Trent Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    This isn't your "traditional" report here. I am coming here as directed from WP:AE about a possible arbitration ruling violation. WP:AE suggests that ArbCom violations in regards to a specific amount of reverts be reported here in hopes of a quicker response.

    Back in September, there was an Arbitration case between Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) and Jmfangio (now indefinitely blocked for unrelated crime). The final decision of that case was that Chrisjnelson be held to, in essence, a "1RR" rule, where he may not make more than one revert on a page in a 24-hour span. The restriction has a six-month range before termination, which would be March 26.

    Yesterday, February 29, Chrisjnelson appears to have reverted another user, Pinkkeith (talk · contribs), two times (first revert, second revert), as well as calling the edits vandalism (which I don't think they were). Ksy92003 (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    Has been blocked for 72 hours by GRBerry. TigerShark (talk) 23:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Betimsa reported by User:sethie (Result:No block)

    NEWBORN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Betimsa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    1. 1 ]
    1. 2 ]
    1. 3 ]

    Attempts at discussion ] ] have produced no results and his/her reverting continues. Sethie (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    • No official warning given. This user is clearly unaware of Misplaced Pages rules and regs and it's quite unlikely they know what edit warring is. Please issue a {{3RR}} warning and come back if the problem continues. Kafziel 08:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    Do you really think this is a new user? His fourth edit was to upload an image, his fifth edit was creating a page with an infobox? I don't think so.
    Still no response from him, and now an anon IP has taken up the cause, sans discussion also. Sethie (talk) 16:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wndl42 reported by User:Andyvphil (Result:Both blocked 24h, article s-protected)

    United States journalism scandals (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Wndl42 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 08:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)




    • Diff of 3RR warning: 00:58, 2 March 2008 edit comment: "Your next revert will be 4RR. Restrain yourself."

    I issued the 3RR warning after WNDL42's 3rd revert and returned later to find he had reverted three more times. He should be familiar with the rules by now. He first issued me a bogus 3RR warning about Feb 3rd (discussion here) and has been spamming my talk page with bogus 3RR and other warnings ever since, and has been involved in at least one 3RR dispute on this page before. This is not the place to complain about his BLP-violating POV pushing, so I won't. But I direct the attention of anyone interested to my response to the suggestion that I am or have a sockpuppet where I make an appeal for volunteer intervention. Andyvphil (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    don't know if it matters but I have been getting into edit wars with user:andyvphil as well. he refuses to use the talk page in a good-faith fashion and he refuses to make good-faith edit summaries. I find that instead of attempting to work towards consensus text he prefers to rv back to the same text over and over, even when multiple other users disagree, because its full of weasel-words. If you take a look at my history you will see numerous examples of my involvements with him, and how he uses words and edit summaries. So oh well, but I can see how he could push someone else into a 3rr situation through his own actions. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 08:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:DefendEurope reported by Fut.Perf. (Result:24 hours)

    Ancient Macedonians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). DefendEurope (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 09:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    Revert warring for the inclusion of a number of low-quality external links and a POV change to the wording of the lead. Longterm contentious article, all issues have been discussed for years. WP:ARBMAC is applicable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:TiconderogaCCB reported by 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) (Result: )


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

    Has been edit warring for a few days and at least 3 3rr violations in the past few days. Has resulted in the creating of two articles and dues to his behavior. 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    TiconderogaCCB is attempting to correct the article, while the above reporter is vandalizing it. This user has been demonstrating the same conduct of reverting, and is now sockpuppeting by using an IP instead of his user name, User:Uconnstud. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    At no point did I use a sockpuppet via IP. Even if I did use an IP i could have easily been logged off which I didn't. TiconderogaCCB always uses IP edits and changes them in right afterwards . In addition TiconderogaCCB, Keeps deleting opinions that are contrary to his opinion in an attempt to build a consensus. It can be seen here where this opinion was deleted "J.Delany agreed to this verions - I agree to this verion as well 63.113.199.109 (talk) 12:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)" his reason was vandalism and he says discussion was deleted when it was simply moved from the top to the bottom to go in chronological order(after he moved it). Also he asked for an opinion on which version is better to which i was notified and so was he . When the third opinion came in he simply ignored what the third opinion was and simply reverted the page . I thought we had a compromise and would listen to the 3rd opinion, but now i'm really starting to wonder if there can be any compromise with him. Uconnstud (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    J.delanoy did not agree to either version, and offered critique of both. There is now an opprotunity for other editors to vote on the option they prefer, and I think it is best to see where that leads us. This editor just will not quit, and even other editors comments recognize that he is attempting to vandalize, not improve the article. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:35, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    So because you didn't agree with J.Delanoy you simply reverted the whole article. So why ask for a 3rd opinion? What if I had done the same? You're the editor who won't quit! That other editor.. that was you! Uconnstud (talk) 03:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    We obtained another opinion, but it was ambiguous, and now I am seeking input from other editors, which scares you. Also, please stop undoing the archive, it was recommended by Misplaced Pages. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC
    3rd opinion by J.Delanoy scared you. That's you you ignored it. He gave a very thorough opinion which you ignored! Uconnstud (talk) 03:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    You did not offer any alterations to the article either. It was a good opinion, but vague. The editors input will be more appropriate to deal with this issue. You should also not be saying that he "preferred" your article, because that was by no means his conclusion. - --TiconderogaCCB (talk) 04:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    With respect to the parties involved, the entire point of a third opinion is to discuss it and come to some sort of compromise, or for one of the parties to acknowledge that the other's version is acceptable after all. The absolute wrong thing to do is to receive a third opinion and immediately revert again. If the opinion was ambiguous on some points, then open a dialogue on those points. Both TiconderogaCCB and Uconnstud were very specifically warned not to revert to either version before discussing the matter on the talk page, and that is exactly what ended up happening - which explains in part why the article has now been protected again. UltraExactZZ ~ Evidence 13:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Siekierki reported by User:2007apm (Result: )


    • 1st revert: 10:11, 27 February 2008
    • 2nd revert: 16:33, 27 February 2008
    • 3rd revert: 22:08, 27 February 2008
    • 4th revert: 22:31, 27 February 2008
    • 5th revert: 19:49, 28 February 2008
    • 6th revert: 19:59, 28 February 2008
    • 7th revert: 16:37, 29 February 2008
    • 8th revert: 20:45, 29 February 2008
    • 9th revert: 17:00, 1 March 2008
    • 10th revert: 19:35, 1 March 2008
    • 11th revert: 11:07, 2 March 2008

    (Note that, while not all reverts are within 24 hours, at least 4 are.

    • Diff of 3RR warning: 00:44, 2 March 2008

    A short explanation of the incident.

    The article is about countries wanting to join the European Union. There is a section on Kosovo which, rightly, mentions that some EU countries and Serbia dispute Kosovo's independence, and agreement would be needed before Kosovo joined the EU.

    Siekierki wants his POV to prevail, and keeps changing the article so the section on Kosovo is a sub heading of the section of th Serbian section. It should be noted that the majority of EU mamber states have recognised (or have publicly announced th they are in the process of recognising) Kosovo's independence. 


    2007apm (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Redthoreau reported by User:Mattisse (Result:withdrawn by reporter)

    *Three-revert rule violation on Che Guevara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Redthoreau (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): Time reported: 16:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)


    • - (11:01, 2 March 2008)
    • - 10:57, 2 March 2008

    (same diff num but diff revision)

    • - 10:50, 2 March 2008
    • - 10:44, 2 March 2008
    • - 10:40, 2 March 2008
    • Warnings
    • Warnings

    A short explanation of the incident.

    Che Guevara has been in FAR since Feb. 23. See: Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Che Guevara, largely as a result of massive editing by User:Redthoreau since January 2008 that doubled the article size and introduced massive POV. He is not participating in the FAR, except to object. He has not be participating in the talk page discussions, as he has asked to repeatedly, before he makes changes. The above edits are the first he has made since the FAR began. Mattisse 16:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    I wish to withdraw this complaint as I will no longer be editing the article. Thanks! Mattisse 20:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:WilliamHanrahan reported by User:RepublicanJacobite (Result:24h)


    Editor persists in edit warring to include a minority term in an article where it doesn't belong, despite being reverted by four different editors. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 18:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:UtherSRG reported by User:Beyazid (Result: 24 hrs)

    This is but one of more than a dozen articles that the user is actively edit-warring over, and I would appreciate an outside admin to please assist with the situation.

    The user has an extended history of refusing to accept any view but his own on a style issue and has engaged in widespread edit-warring over it for ages. UtherSRG specifically was notified of 3RR (though it shouldn't have been necessary, he is a heavy contributor to[REDACTED] and even an admin, he full well knows the rules):

    Please see Talk:Bobcat#Capitalization_again for more on the recent events. This is a long-term, chronic issue where UtherSRG has repeatedly not convinced other[REDACTED] editors of his view on the topic, yet maintains that he can strong arm the issue with reverts. A huge discussion took place at WP:MOS at the end of 2007, of which he was a part, and it resulted in consensus language now found on the front page of WP:MOS. His view was discussed and it was not accepted. UtherSRG refuses to allow edits where other wikipedians align animal articles with WP:MOS and instead enforces his personal viewpoint with the reverts. I edited a series of articles on various cat species be formatted according to WP:MOS and it's what triggered the latest barrage of reverts. Misplaced Pages editors have patiently and calmly discussed this issue with him many times (eg here) but he refuses to accept consensus. Beyazid (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    Addendum
    Also I see there was a violation of 3RR by UtherSRG on the leopard cat article.
    These two articles are where 3RR has been violated, but there are about a dozen other additional articles where he has been reverting 1-3 times a day. Beyazid (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:kborer at socialized medicine

    Same version introduced by user above three times in 25 hours. Was warned on this same subject on 17 February for a similar group of edits. This is not the first time the same editor has violated the spirit of 3RR, usually on this same article. Note that despite the claim that wholesale (highly biased changes) would be explained on talk page, this did not happen. Note the version in question - introduced by kborer - is inflammatory and highly POV: "Socialized medicine' is any health care system that embodies the fundamental principle of socialism, namely reduced individual liberty in favor of increased centralized control."--Gregalton (talk) 22:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
    One more revert since then, i.e. four times in appr 30 hours. Please note the original edit in this period was essentially a revert to a version from February 16 . The more recent reverts are at the history page here. Note that kborer has been warned before, but cleans his talk page history to remove these notices.--Gregalton (talk) 06:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    This is purely a content dispute. Last reverts by Kborer were to a different compromise version that does not mention reduced individual liberty. Gregalton has stated on the talk page of the article that he is encouraging to revert instead of having a discussion on the talk page. --Doopdoop (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    This is a misrepresentation. Changing one or two words to a so-called "compromise" version (which several editors had objected to and is by no means a compromise version) is still violating the spirit of 3RR.--Gregalton (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Dmknable reported by User:Spacini (Result:No action )

    Resolved

    User:Realist2 reported by MassassiUK (Result: page semi protected)

    Resolved



    User Realist2 is engaging in an edit war and has reverted reliably cited information a total of 4 time in less than 90 minutes. Looking at the user's history and talk pages (a die-hard Michael Jackson fan), there appears to be a history of this. MassassiUK (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    • If you would care to look at the Michael Jackson or Thriller articles you will see that this user was using his account on 1 page and his ip address on the other, their were two of them (the same person) vandalising each page. You will also see that since then I have added an addition 6 sources to the 2 that were already there supporting my argument.Realist2 (talk) 01:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Infact its a triple sock puppet.

    hereherehereRealist2 (talk) 02:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Page semi-protected for one week to prevent disruption. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    If there are concerns about WP:SOCK, please file a report at WP:SSP ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 02:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    This is utter nonsense. Realist2 is making baseless accusations of sock puppetry in order to detract away from the fact that he/she has broken the 3RR policy and has reverted the "Thriller" page FIVE times in the last couple of hours (including once again since this complaint was listed as "resolved"). He/she is removing valid, reputable and CITED information purely because he/she wants to. This is vandalism. However if we are on the topic of sock puppetry, an equal accusation could be made against him/her on the main Michael Jackson page for also being the user ACSE. Considering this user has a history of such behaviour, I suggest the Realist2 account be suspended.MassassiUK (talk) 02:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Utter rubbish ive provided evidence you have just made alligations. Realist2 (talk) 02:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    You have not provided evidence at all, you have simply made an allegation based on the fact that myself and another user have edited the same boards at some point in order to detract from the fact that you yourself are in breach of Wiki policy.MassassiUK (talk) 02:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    And that an ip adress was used as well. Realist2 (talk) 02:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Again - this is not evidence of anything. You are clearly too immature and irresponsible to even be using Misplaced Pages.MassassiUK (talk) 03:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Patkirkwoood reported by User:Wildhartlivie (Result:48 hours)

    Discussion had occurred regarding lead paragraph. This individual persisted in changing what had been agreed on, despite notices on talk page and notes on article talk page, to a poorly worded, stylistically inferior, time framed change. Additionally, he attempted to insert copyrighted photo during most of the reverts despite notices to the contrary. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Blocked for 48 hours due to the user's persistence even after multiple warnings. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Wasted Time R reported by User:Mr.grantevans2 (Result: No action)


    The content in question was removed by concensus. Wasted Time has worked hard on the article and seems to feel he has ownership of its content because he rewrote and reinserted the same "polarizing" categorization of the subject of the BLP without first passing it by the numerous commentors who opposed the polarizing label for the subject of the BLP. I have asked him to get consensus before reincluding the polarizing section and his response has been to break the 3RR rule. As an experienced (very) user he must be well aware of the rule. Normally I would not report this but I fear that the User's attention to this and other articles he is trying to move into FAC is becoming a bit obsessive so perhaps a small reprimand by authority would snap him out of it. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:42, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    I would WELCOME administrators looking at this, the more the better. Please read my explanation of the situation at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Process discussion for MrGrantEvans2, and the section above that Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Queries for MrGrantEvans2, both of which MrGrantEvans2 has been non-responsive to, instead just repeatedly deleting the material in question. I have polled the previous objectors to the previous version of the material, although they'll have a hard time judging the revised material since MrGrantEvans2 keeps deleting it. I would also welcome administrators judging my record of contributions to Misplaced Pages versus MrGrantEvans2, on this article or any other article. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    Note also that MrGrantEvans2's first removal of the entire section occurred before all of the above, with this edit marked "section is non-encyclopedic", which was reverted two minutes later by admin User:Stephan Schulz with this edit marked "Sure is ...". So I'm not the only reverter. Wasted Time R (talk) 03:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • After reading through the talk page, I see no clear consensus for the complete deletion of the section as the reporting user would suggest... Edit-warring has occurred on both sides with, in my opinion, both sides liable to blocking if it continues. I think the reporting user intentionally used 3RR to try to lure Wasted Time into committing a 3RR breach in a purposeful attempt to game the system so I will not block for now... although I would suggest both sides stop, wait for some more opinion to filter in through the talk pages before anyone does anything else. No block for now. Other admins are free to disagree but I think this is the sensible thing to do. Sasquatch t|c 07:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Realist2 reported by User:MassassiUK (Result: 24 hours)


    This is my second report in the past couple of hours. The User:Realist2 has been engaging in edit warring on at least two different pages (see the "Thriller" complaint above) and continues to do so. Despite warnings, he/she has now broken the 3RR on both of these pages in the past few hours alone. The Thriller page has even been semi-protected by an administrator, but this has not stopped User:Realist2. The account should therefore be suspended from further editing. MassassiUK (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    If you noticed ive already ended the issue although you heve definately been engaged in either sock puppetry or tag teaming. I have ended the issue coming to a compromise on it.Realist2 (talk) 03:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Trying to "make nice" now are we? It's too late. You have flouted the rules of Misplaced Pages consistently and will be held accountable. And I am not interested in your lame accusations. MassassiUK (talk) 03:21, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    No I care about the articles and your actions here constitute either puppetry or tag teaming. hereherehere--Realist2 (talk) 03:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    You dont care about the articles at all, you only care about hyping your idol by quoting outrageous sales figures that cannot be definitively proven. And it's not "tag-teaming" just because more than one person agrees that your edits (and reverts) are just plain wrong. MassassiUK (talk) 03:26, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Both you editors work on the same articles yourself if you arent the same ppl so tag teaming is defo their. I do care about that article and am working on it and its improved dramatically , if been working almost soley on it and Thriller 25.--Realist2 (talk) 03:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    your coming across as some1 who hates jackson or his supports. you edited the article to make it look like he made up that figure which is pov. Realist2 (talk) 03:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Good god, listen to yourself! Possessive and territorial much? Firstly, let me just say that you do not own the Michael Jackson and Thriller pages, no matter how much you work on them. If other people can add reliably CITED information to them, then you cannot stop it just because you don't want your pop idol to be diminished in any way. Secondly, I do not hate Jackson at all. I simply do not believe that Thriller has sold 104 million copies. If you look at the certifications for countries around the world, it just isn't possible....no matter what he claims himself. All of the sources you have cited merely repeat what he said himself at the 2006 World Music Awards - but that doesn't make it a fact. Therefore you you have to allow other "cited" sources so people can make up their own minds. The fact that you are obviously such a die-hard MJ fan means that you are not impartial enough to edit the articles responsibly and your behaviour today has shown that.MassassiUK (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    Guys, just as a reminder, at the top of this page it says "Do not continue a dispute on this page." This page is for WP:3RR violations only, and you've both given the admins plenty of information to work with. Please continue the argument on the appropriate page. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 04:00, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    User:Xasha reported by User:Dpotop (Result: )


    A short explanation of the incident. Dpotop (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    I see no warning prior to last revert. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


    User:Shearwater63 reported by User:Vary (Result: 24 hours)

    Editor is an employee (per this comment on my talk page) of Affinion, formerly known Trilegiant and a whole string of other names. Affinion is trying to distance itself from the many complaints and lawsuits filed against it under its past names, and to that end, the editor is attempting to remove references to those problems from the article. Vary | Talk 17:46, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

    User: Pax Arcane reported by User:triplejumper (Result: )

    • Previous version reverted to:


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

    This editor insists on returning the Religious Implicaitons section to the article repeatedly when many editors have a problem with the relevance of this section and have pointed out that the citations of that the section do not support what is written. Pax Arcane’s comments on the article's talk page have resulted in being warned repeatedly about WP:CIVILITY and WP:PA by both admins and other editors. Rather than address the issues that other editors have with the section, He has reverted 5 different times with in 24 hours. This person has been warned about the 3RR rule in the past.


    Editors and Administrators vandalizing content submitted by myself

    I am sorry to say; without naming them directly here (you can track them down) that my new physics related page has not simply been deleted but my contributions have been vandalized by these editors not just in my opinion but in the sense that these administrators and editors (obviously editorial jockeys but without basic physics knowledge) simply a priori regard anything I add on this topic sub-Planck to be garbadge. These adminstrators should quite bluntly be kicked off; they have habit of harrassing contributors ....

    Furthermore, they seem to have deleted the contents of my new page -- not simply removed it but disappeared it from the history sections.

    I got so fed up I added an apparently necessary new page on the general behavior I allue to above; which in the best spirt of[REDACTED] was deleted as "patent nonsense" by these administrators even though the content was not in any way patent nonsense as defined by wikipedia; I am being harassed and was harassed by them before hand; obviously they have been around a while and will probably "win" but in a hollow way making[REDACTED] less usable for the masses. Why these particular morons who know nothing of physics attempt to delete or remove my page which needs no references as it was common knowledge to physisits at present and also creates a section for the comprehensive addition of other refernce, shows that they are more interested in exercising editorial power than in dealing with the content. These administrators are small minded ignorant idiots who SHOULD NOT HAVE THE POWER to administer physics sites of which their grasp of the content is so poor as to make it inevitable that they cannot separate garbadge and vandalism from true content; indeed please start having specialized administrators in content areas so I[REDACTED] will NOT BE FURTHER VANDALIZED by the gross ignorance of these would be "saviors". A little editorial power (without the corresponding conent understanding) is not just a dangerous thing; but leades to the gross phenomena of wikifascism wikifascism now prevalent...

    Example

    <!-- COPY FROM BELOW THIS LINE -->
== ] reported by ] (Result: ) ==
*] violation on {{Article|ARTICLE NAME}}. {{3RRV|NAME_OF_USER}}: Time reported: ~~~~~
*Previous version reverted to:  <!-- This is MANDATORY. -->
<!--For more complex reverts it may be necessary to provide a previous version for each revert
and/or the actual words (in bold) that are being reverted or reverted to.-->
<!-- In the below section, use diffs and NOT previous versions. See Help:Diff if you do not know what a diff is. -->
*1st revert: 
*2nd revert: 
*3rd revert: 
*4th revert: 
*Diff of 3RR warning: 
A short explanation of the incident. ~~~~
<!-- COPY FROM ABOVE THIS LINE -->

    See also

    1. Psalm 139 Project, opening a window to the womb
    2. Baptist Press: 'Story shows that sonograms stop abortions'
    3. "FIRM info page".
    4. "Socialized Medicine in a Wealthy Country by Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr".
    Categories:
    Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Add topic