Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 13:42, 7 November 2014

• 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:109.22.125.90 reported by User:Codename Lisa (Result: )

Page: Windows Live (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.22.125.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (This is the disputed edit, which I reverted per WP:BRD. Talk:Windows Live formed a consensus against it.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

5. (A misfired revert that removed own edits instead of mine.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

109.22.125.90 made some bold edits. I found them problematic. Reverted per WP:BRD. Attempted discussion in talk page. A third party showed up and a consensus was formed. So far so good. Only 109.22.125.90 continued to counter-revert with offensive edit summaries and never showed up in the discussion. Now revision 632139121 is interesting. Hostile edit summary suggests he intended to counter-revert again. But what's get reverted is his own edits. How? Well, I do partial reverts. i.e. I only revert part that are against the consensus. The rest I recover. Seems to me that this person is so angry that doesn't care what he reverts; hitting the revert button and writing something biting is more important to him.

The nature of his contribution is important: Part of his contribution violates a previous WP:ArbCom ruling. Please see Talk:Windows Live for details.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• Note. Codename Lisa, first, you breached WP:3RR, whereas the IP did not. Second, the edits do not "violate" any ArbCom decisions. Those decisions are referred to in the guideline as a partial basis for the guideline, but that aspect of the ArbCom decisions is not enforceable and cannot be "violated". What you have (I don't know anything about the issue) is an alleged violation of the guideline.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

• I made three reverts to Windows Live on 2 November. A fourth is required for breach. I won't argue on the ArbCom ruling anymore. But I did discuss in talk page and IP user is adamant to participate.

Look, in the past, I've proven that the moment someone starts to discuss the matter, I treat them cordially. (I don't insist on the "correct" revision being in effect during the discussion.) But so far, this person has not even taken a single step; looks like he intends to force his revision at all cost. His talk page indicates he even has a history. I think at least a semi-protection is in order. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• You reverted four times: (1) two edits ending at 0:50; (2) two edits ending at 14:09; (3) 14:42; and (4) three edits ending at 15:32. And I disagree with FleetCommand. None of the reverts is exempt under the vandalism exemption.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• @Bbb23: The edit at 0:50 is not a revert. It is an original. (Believe me, if I was a revert, it was a revert of my edit; I'd know it.) And ruining a page's grammar is vandalism; it is in WP:VANDTYPES. Fleet Command (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• You really need to educate yourself about policy. I don't know what "original" means, but text was removed from the article. That constitutes a revert as defined by policy. I see nothing about ruining grammar, as you put it, in VANDTYPES, but it doesn't matter because that's not the kind of vandalism that is exempt. It has to be egregious vandalism, often called "poop" vandalism. Trying to exempt a revert because of vandalism is very rarely accepted because if the user is really vandalizing an article, you'd go to AIV, not here.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• A revert is a deliberate act of undoing a certain edit either in part or whole. (That's why it is perceived as very personal.) Additions, removals and modifications that are part of the natural article evolution are not reverts; if your comment was the standard to judge edits, 68% of Wikipedians would have been violating 3RR every day. Furthermore, I don't see WP:3RRNO prose requiring intensity of vandalism; indeed, in practice, the only difference in treating non-serious vand. vs. serious vand. is in the use of {{uw-vand1}} instead of {{uw-vand3}}. Finally, you are being exceedingly generous towards one user and exceedingly stringent towards another. May I inquire why?

Now, the purpose of this board is to help deal with users who want to force their POV in Misplaced Pages and refuse to participate in any form of discussion. This certain IP user is that kind. I never have reported a regular because they are more than willing to have a dispute resolution. Sometimes, I don't even revert them the first time. What am I supposed to do with this editor? I'd like to reiterate that as soon as this editor enters discussion, all the he did before shall be forgotten and he shall receive a non-biased discussion.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 13:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Codename Lisa, I have a suggestion for you for the future. Let's assume you make an edit that is, in your view, part of the "natural article evolution". The probability is no one is going to count that as a revert, despite the fact that it technically qualifies as one per the 3RR definition, and, as you say, this happens all the time. But let's say that right after that there is an edit war in which you are involved. Regardless of whether the war is over your first edit, you should now be much more careful and count your reverts, including the first one. Now maybe another admin won't count that first one, but why take the risk? In addition, does it really matter if you make one less revert? If the material you're reverting deserves to be reverted, let someone else do it. Anyway, this is intended to be friendly advice, even if you don't agree with my reasoning.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

@Bbb23: Actually, you are making perfect sense. To look innocent is as important as being innocent. And you are advising me to do what I have always done: Involving others, and in doing so, establishing an audit trail. Except doing that brought down other accusations like team-tagging, sockpuppetry and being part of a "cable". (What's a cable anyway? Typo?) Very well.

But regardless of all this, the opposite of edit warring is discussion and it takes two to discuss. I can't make up for the second party's absence with anything, even invoking genuine external opinion. If you asked me, an editor who counter-reverts with an edit summary that reads "Unnecessary reversion for shifty reasons WP:ROWN, WP:BRD and WP:POINT) " has already made up his mind not to discuss.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 08:09, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

• Erm, tell me Bbb23, exactly why are you defending the an IP user that has WP:NOTHERE problems and makes edits that utterly fail WP:COMPETENCY? Four different editors have so far expressed their disagreement with this editor. Isn't it time he stopped? Perhaps you should voice your opinion in Talk:Windows Live? Fleet Command (talk) 03:31, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Actually, Bbb23 is not defending him. User:DennisBrown once explained for you what he is doing. But, if you'll excuse my being a bit frank, now I do understand the proportion of "my edit" in your message above. But of course, the question here is: What would a hypothetical super-collegial editor in my shoe whould have done? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Reverting this edit is exempt from WP:3RR per WP:3RRNO, #4, because it is clear vandalism made out of spite. Registered users can make edits like this by mistake through Twinkle. But IP users can't. It is deliberate. Fleet Command (talk) 00:50, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• @FleetCommand: I hope I am not digressing too much but how would they do it through Twinkle? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 01:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly sure, but I assume selecting "last diff" and "revert good faith/revert vandalism" does it. Fleet Command (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• No. "Last diff" is removed from watchlist in 2012. We only have "cur" and "prev" now. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 03:49, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• Semi-protect. This makes the IP user stop and come to talk page. Full protection stops CL too, but also anyone else. CL says she won't revert if the IP discusses. So, WP:ROPE. Fleet Command (talk) 00:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

• This user is starting to commit sheer vandalism: Fleet Command (talk) 18:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Hello again, FC. Let it go. This thread has expended its lifespan. If the opportunity for compromise presented itself, I'm going to grant it. (I was always; only the chance is now growing higher.) You know, I owe a lot of my success and joy in Misplaced Pages to the fact that I was always willing to talk it over and have a compromise or negotiation. But it must be understood by everyone, including the attending admins in ANEW, that a dispute resolution takes two. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 12:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:LLArrow reported by User:Gloss (Result: Protected)

Page: American Horror Story: Freak Show (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: LLArrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 10-29 18:55, before talk page discussion began, removing Lily Rabe and other characters the user felt did not belong in the section
2. 10-29 20:29, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
3. 10-29 21:08, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
4. 10-29 23:03, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
5. 10-29 23:15, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe again
6. 10-30 01:00, still before the talk page conversation, removed Lily Rabe and David Burtka again
7. 10-30 19:08, after the talk page conversation began, where I reminded the user of 3RR and he stated to me "I am well aware of the regulations of Misplaced Pages, including WP:3RR." - however this was his 7th revert in slightly over 24 hours
8. 11-03 03:44, has continued removing actors the user felt didn't belong (Matt Bomer this time)
9. 11-03 21:21, again removed Lily Rabe and Matt Bomer

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
LLArrow clearly believes that the few actors (specifically Lily Rabe) do not belong in the section they are listed in. The information has been added into this section over 10 times, by multiple different editors, but LLArrow reverts every time. Gloss 02:08, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Result: Article fully protected one week. Use the talk page to get agreement on the disputed matters. EdJohnston (talk) 03:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: I'm curious as to why the editor wasn't blocked when he was the only one with a problem, the only one reverting the same issue over and over. He edit warred and nobody else did, but now the article will suffer when a new episode airs tomorrow and instead of adding a summary tomorrow night it will be added a week from now? Gloss 04:45, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If you can get agreement on the talk page, file an edit request. An admin can update the article through the protection if they perceive a consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I am truly remorseful for any fret I might have caused you, but I do stand by my decisions and actions. I welcome further discussion on the topic on the series' Talk page and only wish to keep Misplaced Pages articles running smoothly and informatively. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 05:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

If any other admins could please review this, it would be appreciated. Protecting the article was not the right way to go about this. One editor was the problem, and now the article (which is highly trafficked) will suffer from not being updated after the most recent episode. Gloss 04:13, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The need for the protection is being discussed at Talk:American Horror Story: Freak Show#Stop destroying the article. EdJohnston (talk) 19:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

HCPUNXKID reported by My very best wishes (Result: )

Page: Donetsk People's Republic (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: HCPUNXKID (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Comments: These are three reverts made during 30 minutes, and separated from another revert by ~ 24 hours. Technically, this not a 3RR violation. I report this only because the user has been previously blocked with a note by admin: "plus stated intent to GAME the 1RR on that page", and this is exactly what he does right now on another page. Moreover, they currently edit war on other pages, for example here
— Preceding unsigned comment added by My very best wishes (talk • contribs)

I count four reverts, all on November 3, starting at 17:44. In my opinion this breaks WP:3RR. I made an offer on his talk page suggesting he can escape sanction if he will agree to get consensus on talk before making any controversial change to Donetsk People's Republic. I suggest that admins wait to close this until User:HCPUNXKID has a chance to respond. EdJohnston (talk) 16:03, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if I broke 3RR, but lets be clear, reaching consensus in that article is simply mission impossible. I've tried to discuss the issue, but if you look at the Donetsk People's Republic talk page, Im not the only editor denouncing the evident negative bias of the article, but we had been all ignored by the half-dozen editors who seem to own this article and every ukrainian-related article. Due to that dictatorship (I know it sounds hard, but how you would call a total control of the articles by a group of POV-driven editors? That's the situation right now), its impossible to make an edit (even to add a NPOV tag) on ukrainian-related articles unless its biased in favour of Ukrainian nationalist views. That happens in several articles, like Donetsk People's Republic, Svoboda (political party), 2014 Russian intervention in Ukraine, 2 May 2014 Odessa clashes and a looong number of other articles. It doesnt matter you have good, neutral, reliable sources used & accepted in other articles, that group of editors will use their majority in numbers in order to remove your content unless its favourable to their personal POV's. On the other hand, they could use unreliable sources (aint an unreliable source one coming from one side of the conflict? That's one of the major rules on the Syrian civil war articles, not use sources from one side of the conflict in order to attack or difamate the other side. I suppose that is applied to any other conflict articles, isnt it?) as they want. So, what should editors like me must do, just shut up and see how Misplaced Pages passes from an encyclopedia to a one direction political-driven website?. That's not a rhetoric question, so please tell me what should I do when reaching consensus aint possible.--HCPUNXKID 22:18, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)I think that User:HCPUNXKID would do well to acquaint himself with WP:BATTLEGROUND. Your apology is ingenuous given that you've been using the talk pages but is simply not listening to anyone who tries to explain policy and guidelines, then continuing by simply returning to the articles and reverting using ES like this. You've now been intentionally gaming the system on a number of articles by only just staying within the 3RR for weeks. While overenthusiastic editing practices by relative newcomers is hardly exceptional, it's time to understand that tendentious editing is simply not acceptable. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

The solution to this problem is not a block, but a topic ban under the Eastern European discretionary sanctions, which he has been notified of. He is continuing to make messes across articles, including unilateral PoV page moves. RGloucester — ☎ 23:11, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

After coming back, this user refused to follow the offer by EDJohnston , and started doing exactly the opposite. He continued edit warring on other pages , , , (see also his edit summaries). Based on his comments here and elsewhere, the reason for such behavior is obvious: they refuse to follow WP:Consensus. Therefore, I agree with suggestion by RGloucester about the topic ban. My very best wishes (talk) 01:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:166.137.12.61 reported by User:Aoidh (Result: Semi)

Page: WCCO-TV (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 166.137.12.61 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There are a few prior discussions on the article's talk page at Talk:WCCO-TV.

Comments:
IP made 11 Reverts in 24 hours under the impression that their edits do not need consensus, and restoring names that do not belong in the article per WP:LISTPEOPLE. - Aoidh (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Since filing this I've started a talk page discussion here and the IP has continued to revert from a different IP address. - Aoidh (talk) 03:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected one month. The IP believes that external links don't need consensus and ascribes this novel idea to the WP:EL guideline. What we enforce here is the WP:Edit warring *policy* where there is no mention of an exemption for external links. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Megwood221 reported by User:Rms125a@hotmail.com (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Ryan O'Neal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Megwood221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Formerly Stephaniemuue, StephanieLarkin, et al; see the sockpuppet investigation archive here

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

NO, this editor is way too far gone to attempt communication.

Comments:
This editor has a long history under other usernames (Stephaniemuue, StephanieLarkin and several other aliases) of making insane edit changes, primarily to Ryan O'Neal's article, but also to related articles (Farrah Fawcett; Charles O'Neal, Ryan's father). Quis separabit? 03:56, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see also Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Stephaniemuue. Δρ.Κ.  05:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely based on SPI report.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Vanamonde93 reported by User:AmritasyaPutra (Result: Three editors warned)

Page

Vishva Hindu Parishad (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. Talk:Vishva_Hindu_Parishad#Swami_Lakshmanananda (Info Note: One user has edited this section under two different Misplaced Pages user names)

Comments:

Vanamonde93 is expressly purging referenced content initially added by another editor long ago, which I added back and he keeps removing it repeating that he is not satisfied by response on the talk page discussion; without waiting for a consensus or response, he reverts immediately after putting his comment. Technically this is not 3RR violation. But Vanamonde93, two weeks back also, has reverted another user 3 times in 24h , , . AmritasyaPutra 06:26, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Having watched this debate from the beginning, I think there is hardly anything to fault in Vanamonde93's conduct. The point raised by them in the diff ("undue weight") has not yet been answered even though AmritasyaPutra reinserted the contentious material every time it was deleted. Until AmritasyaPutra understands and addresses/concedes the point, I don't see why their preferred version should be on the article page. The edit war is entirely due to AmritasyaPutra's failure to join the debate on the talk page. There was no "attempt to resolve the dispute" on their part, merely sticking to guns. Kautilya3 (talk) 09:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Note: Kautilya3 is an involved party (, , ), Consider the above Info Note too. Comment: Please validate what Kautilya3 is alleging. --AmritasyaPutra 09:22, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. There is now law against being involved in a debate, as far as I know! Kautilya3 (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I am not certain what AP is trying to achieve here, as he has as many reverts as I do. I don't believe my behavior is block worthy; I don't think I have hit 3RR, and certainly have not breached it. Yes, you can edit war without hitting 3RR, but if somebody takes a look at the talk page, they will see that successive reverts only followed after discussion, and came because AP has been refusing to discuss the issue of the relevance of the content removed, and insists on talking about the reliability, and the fact that it has been in the article for a while, despite myself and Kautilya repeatedly telling him that we were not disputing those. This tendency seems to have continued in his report as well. Finally, my last revert was eleven hours ago, and I have since posted to the talk; without a 3RR breach, any block would surely be punitive at this point. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You agreed reliability and notability are not the issue(). Your stand is "it is not relevant to the lead" though you agree it is relevant to the article(), is there a guideline for it that you followed to revert six times immediately after your own comment? I have responded categorically(,). I do not have as many reverts -- you reverted two editors. --AmritasyaPutra 17:12, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: User:AmritasyaPutra, User:Kautilya3 and User:Vanamonde93 are all warned that they may be blocked if they revert the lead again before getting a clear consensus on the talk page. A 2:1 majority in Talk:Vishva Hindu Parishad#Swami Lakshmanananda is hardly a decisive verdict. I suggest following the steps of WP:Dispute resolution which can bring in outside views. One option is an WP:RFC. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Lowlihao reported by User:Tide rolls (Result: Stale)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (Sarted reverting here; see page history.
3. (Started reverting here; see page history

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This individual usually makes incremental changes that will eventually revert to their preferred version. Some of the diffs above merely illustrate the beginning of the reversion. They seem to be new and/or are English-challenged. Anyway, it's disruptive. Tiderolls 13:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Stale. User has not edited for three days. Refile if this continues. When edits are so infrequent, there is not much to do other than full protection or a long-term block. Either one would require more effort to contact the user. EdJohnston (talk) 21:41, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:130.235.3.107 reported by User:Stesmo (Result: )

Page

Cell ID (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

130.235.3.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632512919 by PrithiviRajWiki (talk)"
2. 12:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632409079 by PrithiviRajWiki (talk)"
3. 10:19, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632400046 by PrithiviRajWiki (talk)"
4. 09:18, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632395902 by PrithiviRajWiki (talk)"
5. 08:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:16, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Edit war warning... Please hash out your issues in the article Talk page."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit War */ new section"

Comments:

Involved in a pointless edit war with another editor. Warned on IP Talk page and started discussion in article Talk. May also be editor reverting PrithiviRajWiki's reverts under different IPs on the same page. Stesmo (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:PrithiviRajWiki reported by User:Stesmo (Result: Blocked and page protected)

Page

Cell ID (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PrithiviRajWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 04:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632443374 by 90.229.226.117 (talk)"
2. 17:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632435371 by 130.235.2.69 (talk)"
3. 16:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632432607 by 109.58.147.56 (talk)"
4. 15:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632409859 by 130.235.3.107 (talk)"
5. 12:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632405869 by 2.71.224.141 (talk)"
6. 11:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632400938 by 130.235.3.107 (talk)"
7. 10:06, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632396796 by 130.235.3.107 (talk)"
8. 09:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632394345 by 130.235.3.107 (talk)"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "Edit war warning... Please hash out your issues in the article Talk page."

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 19:31, 4 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit War */ new section"

Comments:

Involved in a pointless edit war with another editor(s). Warned on editor's Talk page and started discussion in article Talk. Stesmo (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours and Cell ID Fully protected for a period of 6 months, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 19:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks CambridgeBayWeather. The two companies fighting for top place are based in Sweden and India. Co-incdientally the two users fighting happen to be from India and Sweden. In fact, one of the users is called User:Unwiredlabs (one of the companies on the list). Stickee (talk) 01:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Update: Just noticed your AN thread. Stickee (talk) 01:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User: Tina cain reported by User:Robert McClenon (Result: Both pages semi-protected and user warned indeffed.)

Page: Harry Reid (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Mitch McConnell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Tina cain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Harry Reid

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harry_Reid&diff=632577480&oldid=632571741

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harry_Reid&diff=632580063&oldid=632577794

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harry_Reid&diff=632581989&oldid=632581529

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Harry_Reid&diff=632583056&oldid=632582490

Mitch McConnell

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632576855&oldid=632574121

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632579920&oldid=632577825

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632581415&oldid=632580952

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632582224&oldid=632581703

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Mitch_McConnell&diff=632584338&oldid=632583789

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article user talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATina_cain&diff=632579936&oldid=632579716

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATina_cain&diff=632581904&oldid=632579936

User notified of this discussion: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3ATina_cain&diff=632584461&oldid=632584399

Comments:

Comments by filer: Editor keeps changing the job titles of the US Senate Majority Leader and Minority Leader after being advised that they haven't taken their new positions yet Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Up to 7RR on each Senator. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2014 (UTC) Blocked indefinitely by User:Edgar181 Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Villaged reported by User:Dougweller (Result: Blocked)

Page

Joseph Smith (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Villaged (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:27, 5 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Polygamy */ Inserted language about the youngest wife."
2. 18:44, 5 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632588446 by Adjwilley (talk) There was consensus before you started your editing. This information brings the context of the controversy. It's cited, it goes in."
3. 18:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632583411 by Adjwilley (talk) This information is what is needed to understand the issue in Emma's head, which is referenced in the paragraph. Reverting back to supply context."
4. 11:29, 5 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Polygamy */ Placing the fourteen year old wife back in. This marriage is a fact. This clearly and properly shows the age range of the wives."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 19:20, 5 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Joseph Smith. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

I added information that others immediately reverted. Why am I being the only that is being castigated for this? I've taken the advice and taken the edit to the talk page. Villaged (talk) 19:43, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 31 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 05:44, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:82.136.210.153 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Malformed)

Page: Steam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 82.136.210.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Here's an odd one. A Dutch IP arguing with itself over the wording of a disambig hatnote. Policy, practice and three separate users today have reverted this to the usual

"For other uses, see Steam (disambiguation)."

but one of the IP personas wants to have a double link with

"For the software distribution platform, see Steam (software). For other uses, see Steam (disambiguation)."

presumably because they're a gamer and so they're a special snowflake.

Whatever. It's clear edit warring. Cut it out.

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. --Bbb23 (talk) 05:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Article history? You are capable of finding that aren't you? It's the clearest presentation rather than seven opaque links. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:10, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AlbaDeTamble reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: blocked 72 hours)

Page

Ian Stevenson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

AlbaDeTamble (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 00:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632627762 by Goblin Face (talk) Stop reverting my edits. The previous version was very biased."
2. 01:07, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632632316 by Vsmith (talk) I make legit edits and you keep reverting. Stop trolling!"
3. 03:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632646304 by Goblin Face (talk) You are not listening. It's biased. You have an agenda. Admit it."
4. 04:22, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 632650214 by Roxy the dog (talk) I took it to Talk. Why don't you answer there instead of just undoing my work?"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 04:39, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Ian Stevenson. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 04:36, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Just because you disagree does not mean you can misrepresent */ repeated removal of source content against consensus = EW"

Comments:

Apparently the so-called skeptics are ganging up on me. A well-coordinated effort to prevent my edits. No actual responses to my arguments in the talk page, just bullying. Nicely done trolls. --AlbaDeTamble (talk) 04:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Well, "trolls"? That's harassment on top of edit warring. Blocked. Drmies (talk) 05:16, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:AcidSnow reported by User:Vetrisimino0 (Result: Submitter warned)

Page: Culture of Eritrea (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AcidSnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: User is reverting without discussing and does not look to previous discussion.
Vetrisimino0 (talk) 06:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow really? Not only have you failed to accept sources you have now chosen to try to get me out if the picture. However, during my time on Misplaced Pages I have never broken even once. Ironically, I can't say the same about you along with your refusal to gain consensus. Even now, the first link is from October 29 while the other two are from November 5th. Not only that but you did not even bother to notify me this false report.

"User is reverting without discussing and does not look to previous discussion", you honestly must be joking. Where did I not disscuse anything let alone not read the disscussion on the talk page? Anyone can see that I have including user Middayexpress. AcidSnow (talk) 11:29, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the first link is not even recent but from days ago. The matter was also discussed at length on the talk page, so the no discussion claim is equally spurious. Middayexpress (talk) 13:40, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Result: The submitter User:Vetrisimino0 seems to be warring against everyone else though he has not yet passed 3RR. He is warned that if he continues to revert (prior to consensus) he may be blocked. EdJohnston (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Akhil monarch reported by User:MrBill3 (Result: Blocked)

Page

Manoj Bajpai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Akhil monarch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:02, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 03:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC) to 03:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
   1. 03:05, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"
   2. 03:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Personal life */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 03:48, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "Notification of good faith revert found using STiki"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 13:25, 6 November 2014 (UTC) "/* Repeated insertion of unsourced content */ new section"

Comments:

Not a case of 3RR but this seems to be an SPA repeatedly inserting unsourced content to a BLP, despite multiple warnings diff of Clue Bot notice, see User talk:Akhil monarch for multiple warnings on same issue, same article, see User:Akhil monarch contribs for history. MrBill3 (talk) 13:31, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one month.--Bbb23 (talk) 06:18, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Rob112134 reported by User:WeijiBaikeBianji (Result: Blocked)

Page: Intelligence quotient (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rob112134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

It has been a while since I have seen such persistent edit-warring for unsourced vandalism that removes content with an inline citation to a reliable source. -- 20:49, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely by Dougweller. Stickee (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:Sanjiva.weerawarana and User:Orubel reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Orubel blocked; semi-protected)

Page: Sanjiva Weerawarana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: Sanjiva.weerawarana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Irshadhassan30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Orubel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Ten rounds of back-and-forth removal (Sanjiva.weerawarana) and restoration (Orubel) since the end of October of a 1.1k "Controversy" section that the subject of this article obviously objects to.

No attempts at discussion, just classic back-and-forth.

Comments:

• Blocked Orubel for one week for WP:BLP violations (in addition to the edit-warring that everyone was doing). Others not blocked because of BLP exemption. Obvious conflicts and probable socking. Semi-protected for one month (none of the warriors is auto-confirmed). Andy Dingley, at least this report wasn't malformed, but you must notify any user reported here. I'm not going to bother notifying Orubel, but, as a matter of form, I will notify the other two registered accounts (there's also an IP involved).--Bbb23 (talk) 06:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

User:বব২৬ reported by User:Redtigerxyz (Result: )

Page: Bengali calendar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: বব২৬ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (I have kept on revising the revision, the current preferred reference)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bengali_calendar#User:.E0.A6.AC.E0.A6.AC.E0.A7.A8.E0.A7.AC.27s_edit

Comments:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring