Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:14, 20 November 2012

• 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:Bastista1 reported by User:Keith Okamoto (Result: Indeffed)

Page: Survivor Series (2012) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Bastista1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user has violated the 3RR rule on this page countless times on Survivor Series (2012) that it appears he will not stop until the page is what he like it to be. Keith Okamoto (talk) 18:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. I understand this is a problematic editor who has been blocked multiple times and doesn't seem to get it. That said, you didn't fill out the entire report, you didn't warn them of edit-warring, and you didn't try to engage them on the content issue (not easy to follow the recent edit history, frankly). The easiest thing for me would be just to block them as my guess is that even if you did all of those things, the editor would not respond constructively. But unless you can make a case that the current behavior is a resumption of the same conduct on the same article as the last time they were blocked, we should follow the proper procedures.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:19, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

It's mostly of changing the names of certain wrestlers like C-M Punk (when it's CM Punk). If I was to try and help him fix thing, he'll ignore me and revert to the way he does it. Keith Okamoto (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I noted that in my comment, but if you want them blocked, then you have to do it, even if you think it's a waste of time. In any event, because I'm concerned about the disruption caused by the user's persistent, non-collaborative behavior, I've left the user a warning.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

• Note. User made another similar edit/revert without responding to my warning. Indefinitely blocked.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:146.115.161.217 reported by User:Aspects (Result: )

Page: Siobhan Magnus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 146.115.161.217 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: March 29
• 2nd revert: April 3
• 3rd revert: April 3
• 4th revert: April 26
• 5th revert: June 14
• 6th revert: July 1
• 7th revert: July 25
• 8th revert: August 1
• 9th revert: August 17
• 10th revert: October 13
• 11th revert: October 23
• 12th revert: October 25
• 13th revert: November 8
• 14th revert: November 9
• 15th revert: November 10
• 16th revert: November 10
• 17th revert: November 17
• 18th revert: November 17

The user is creating a slow moving edit war about whether reliably sourced information, Siobhan Magnus's younger siblings' names, should be mentioned in the article dating back nine months that have intensified over the past month. I first gave two delete warnings because the IP user has never used an edit summary to state their objections. I did not notice that they replied to by second delete warning, in April, until October when I was going to write out a new section asking why they kept making the same reversion over and over again. I have left them two messages and a edit war warning and have received no response back.

• Diff of uw-delete1 warning:
• Diff of uw-delete2 warning:
• Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Diff of 1st attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:
• Diff of 2nd attempt to resolve dispute on user talk page:

Note. If the IP deserves to be blocked, so do you. For every revert by the IP, you have reverted right back. The difference is the IP is arguably a newbie, whereas you have been here 5 years and have over 100K edits (you also have a clean block log that I'm sure you'd prefer to keep that way). As for the dispute, it is fairly trivial. You believe the names of two of the youngest siblings should be mentioned in the article because they are sourced. The IP believes they should not be because they are too young and because of privacy concerns. I generally remove birth dates for children from articles. I don't usually remove names, but I can see the IP's point. With the possible exception of Rory, who is an adult, and whose job is mentioned in a subsequent sentence, none of the other siblings needs to be named - their names add nothing to the article. So, for example, the article could say: "She was raised in Barnstable, Massachusetts, along with her two brothers and three sisters." So, I'll let you decide. Do you want to resolve this content dispute in what is arguably a reasonable fashion, or do you want to be blocked? Now, there's a loaded question. :-) --Bbb23 (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Author 91 reported by User:Sitush (Result: Blocked for 24 hours)

Page: Kshatriya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Author 91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User talk:Author 91#November 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: here, here, here and here. There is also an open SPI here.

Comments:

I am not sockpuppeting.I left that message for that user because I felt that we were having the same point and he had raised it time and again on various pages. And about using same style of words, I think its just a coincidence. I am not trying to push any position about some community. I am writing what is right and true. As you can see I've added quite enough number of references. So what makes you think that we should consider widely accepted opinions only. Some facts get disclosed with time. We should not just keep on repeating widely accepted theories. I am not edit warring. If I am writing long paragraphs on talk page to reason why I am updating the article and someone just comes in and reverts my edit, isn't it unethical. Can't they first prove why I was wrong in stating those facts and then decide what to do. If someone really has great knowledge about this subject, he/she should come forward and explain to me why can't I edit that page. Discussions are getting us nowhere. -Author 91 (talk) 14:14, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Result:
Author 91 blocked for 24 hours. They have not violated 3RR, but have edit warred consistently ever since the account was created (four days ago), and their comments give every indication that they intend to continue. They have been repeatedly warned and advised both on their own talk and the article talkpage. I have posted some further advice and policy references on their talk, especially in relation to comments they have made on this page such as "So what makes you think that we should consider widely accepted opinions only" and "I am not edit warring". I haven't considered the SPI; it will presumably be dealt with on the appropriate page. Bishonen | talk 15:25, 18 November 2012 (UTC).

User:Sayerslle reported by User:Brewcrewer (Result: warned)

Page: Operation Pillar of Cloud (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Sayerslle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: (user has made zero edits to the talk page)

Comments:
This article is under a 1RR restriction so violating 3RR is quite egregious. Also note that this user was blocked a whole bunch of times already, including a few times for edit-warring.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 17:07, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

'Also note that this user was blocked a whole bunch of times already, including a few times for edit-warring' Is this how it works? right little surveillance operation. IN nearly 4 years I have been blocked for edit warring about twice - when i had the grave misfortune to come up against highly motivated pov pushers. i find your attitude here really mean-minded and sneaky - i reverted once what i took to be vandalism, the reason 'grammar' being utterly specious, and your reason of 'copyvio' was a bit small-minded and absurd also imo - for such simple statements - i was changing the words to suit you, and adding another source, and then another user deleted my revised RS (guardian/independent) addition because they knew better - which is OR - in the meantime i am leaving the article to the people who are running it - i shall use the bbc if I want to know about the subject of the article - the wp article will be useless for neutral info. and what about your history- Rachel Corrie? user pages should state clearly partisanship -everyone is a partisan - orwell said so.so you are too brewcrewerSayerslle (talk) 17:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

• Warned. Sayerslle has declared that he will no longer edit the article, so I'm not blocking pending this voluntary abstinence of edits and refraining from adding non-free copyrighted text. Because, content dispute aside, this was first of all a clear issue of copyright infringement through copy & paste and close paraphrasing. @Brewcrewer: please note that adding new content does not constitute a revert, i.e. the very first diff you mentioned above does not count. And you could have pointed Sayerslle at the discussion you iniated at the article talk about the lead. Actually the first one to comment about including Morsi's reaction there was Ankh Morpork when you had already warned Sayerslle about the 1RR. So writing that he didn't edit the article talk is not very conclusive. De728631 (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This is very poor judgement on your part. First of all the article is under 1RR restriction so any wikilawyering as to why it isn't a 3rr violation is irrelevant so I won't even bother responding to those points. More importantly, the content that Sayerslle added and then edit-warred into the article three more times is still in the article. Sayerslle was given by me the opportunity to self-revert prior to me bringing this here but chose not to. Instead he came here and attacked me calling me "sneaky." He still could have self-reverted after I brought this here but again chose not to. The fact that he has a past of bad behavior and he never even self-reverted, and you just decide to "warn" him while the content is still in the article, speaks a lot to your judgement. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:20, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't block editors to punish them but as a preventive measure. In this case I am willing to believe that Sayerslle will not edit the article in question any further. Please re-report if disruptive editing ensues again. If you think though that his general behaviour is problematic you may want to file a report at WP:ANI. De728631 (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

@Brewcrewer - I looked back at my block log and I have been blocked twice in nearly four years for edit warring - so 'a few times ' is a lie. In nearly 4 years of editing , and nearly 10K edits I have been blocked about once a year I think - I do not edit in just a few political areas or such-like, I make contributions in different areas, occasionally I have got too hyped up and sworn - bad, I agree and since the last block, I have stopped swearing - i find a great danger if 'civil' contributors who have a very set agenda nevertheless learn to play the system to wipe out people who seek to contribute consistently throughout the year and then get blocked once in a year of a lot of activity , and then this becomes 'he's been blocked a whole bunch of times, the guys a troublemaker' blah blah - we will end up with 'a bunch of' civil ( well, yesss - civil?), narrow-minded, ungenerous, vindictive people. In the meantime I think you should apologose for lying about 'a few times' which though it is a small thing in some ways, it illustrates your eagerness to quickly sum me up in the worst, most lurid way imaginable, to get me blocked, shut up , removed. I find your whole attitude distasteful and un-helpful and anti-community spirited - when I do leave wp, if I do leave and not get banned for something, the likes of you will be one of the reasons I will not miss it much. Sayerslle (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Personally, you're just beating a dead horse and creating a further issue out of nothing, you got off with a warning and that should be that. Also by definition, "a few times" can be taken as at least two or more times, or infrequently, take your pick, in any case he's correct in stating you've previously been blocked a few times for edit warring. This should be archived and left alone now as no one will benefit from further action or feuding. + Crashdoom 14:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Туча reported by User:Useddenim (Result: Declined)

Page: File:BSicon TRAIN.svg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
 specifically: inserting the redirect instead of the target file
User being reported: Туча (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

His reply: Не надо мне приказывать, что мне делать. Какие иконки желаю, такие и использую.
(which, according to Google translate is approximately "I'll do whatever I want.")

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Туча does not appear to want to discuss the usage of an alternative icon. See his comments here and here. He also attempted to delete the icon from the catalog: .

Comments:

Bad faith edits where Туча added BSicon_TRAIN.svg to files that did not previously contain it:

Useddenim (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. What does this have to with the English wikipedia?--Bbb23 (talk) 02:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know where else to bring this up. Useddenim (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Declined. We don't block for conduct on other wikis. If another admin has any advice to give Useddenim, feel free.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Useddenim, I see there was a war (or at least a couple of reverts) at Misplaced Pages:Route diagram template/Catalog of pictograms/others. It will be uncommon for admins to know anything about these train images. Why don't you ask User:Plasticspork for advice, since he is an admin who has worked on that image catalog and has been active recently. EdJohnston (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• I apologize for my English. I may be not understand something. "I am tired of Туча's ranting" - Useddenim say, when I tried to discuss with him the issue. Useddenim does not want seek consensus. I've been trying to find an understanding with him through the page on commons, but he did not answer. Instead it would be to find a new name for his image, he tries to capture the old redirect that is already in use and very comfortable. His picture is not very good, it looks worse than the standard. He went on all language Misplaced Pages and made hundreds of edits with no one talking. He demonstratively violated the three-revert rule on my test page in russian wikipedia. His efforts to capture the redirect is not supported somebody, and he had been warned about the war of edits in the Russian Misplaced PagesTemplate:Ref-en. So he went in search of the truth here. Other people often advised him to choose a different name for their icon, but he does not understand.

Google translate my sentence does not give his translation even approximately. And why Useddenim don't say me about this report? if i am correct undestanding work this page, he must do it, but EdJohnston did it. --Туча (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Drforbin6 reported by User:Xenophrenic (Result: Declined)

Page: Decwar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Drforbin6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Also Known As: 174.61.22.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: where the editor inserts his real name and web links into the article, and invites readers to play his personal reverse-engineered version of this Decwar game.

• 1st revert: (00:34, 17 November 2012)
• 2nd revert: (19:11, 17 November 2012)
• 3rd revert: (01:41, 18 November 2012)
• 4th revert: (06:13, 18 November 2012)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

The above diffs demonstrate edit-warring, but the problem has gone beyond that and may now be out of the scope of this noticeboard. Additional problems (see the user's Talk page):

• The editor is hopping back and forth between making edits while logged in and while logged out.
• The editor is in violation of WP:PROMO, and says his only purpose is to promote his game software, stating "I would merely like my reverse engineered code to be available to anyone who wishes to add to it, or play the game".
• The editor is in violation of WP:POINT, and has declared that if he can't have his own name in the Wiki article, other names shouldn't be in there either -- and he has now gone on a deletion spree of those names as well as sourced content.
• And to top it all off, he is now in violation of WP:AGF and accusing me of being an editor from Austin, Texas, who previously removed Drforbin6's self-promotion back in June with this edit. I suspect he believes this person, who resides in (wait for it...) Austin, Texas, and who was mentioned in the Decwar article, is that same Austin editor from June. I smell a bit of a rivalry cooking, or all the Austin stuff could just be coincidence.

It's getting too weird for me. I'm going to go restore the recently deleted sourced article content, and then call it a night. If I need to raise this issue at another venue, please let me know. Xenophrenic (talk) 04:35, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm declining this for three reasons. First, the first edit you list isn't clearly a revert; it appears to be the an addition of new material; or, at least, if it is a revert, it's so long after the earlier edit that it's no longer clearly the start of edit warring. Second, your initial interactions with this person back in June (see the top of User Talk:Drforbin6 do not appear to have been done in good faith, and could easily have triggered some of the negative results now. Third, you appear to be edit warring just as much as the other user. I am going to fully protect the article; both of you need to go to the talk page and discuss the matter. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for tending to the matter. The first edit is indeed clearly a revert. It, like the other 3 of the 4 listed diffs, show the editor re-introducing the name "Merlyn Cousins" to the article, just as he had back in June. That's his name, by the way, if he is who he claims to be. As for my initial interactions with the editor back in June, it absolutely was a good faith greeting, as anyone who is familiar with Compuserve, the Decwar game and the associated GameSIG Forum he frequented, would know. The TK code, 'joe' and "I'd tell you, but then I'd have to kill you" references would understandably be lost on everyone else. You'll also note that I didn't touch one pixel of his edits back then, either, nor was I the editor who first did so. And third, I'm already at the article Talk page ... twiddling my thumbs, and listening to crickets. All that being said, I've taken that editor's page off my watchlist, but I'll keep an eye on the article. Now I'm off to "edit war" some blatant vandalism out of some articles, and "edit war" spelling corrections into some others.  ;) Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:111.220.254.32 reported by User:Apollo Credence (Result: Declined )

Page: Patricia Petersen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User: 111.220.254.32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Patricia_Petersen&oldid=523790695

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Patricia_Petersen&oldid=523771314
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Patricia_Petersen&oldid=523779999
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Patricia_Petersen&oldid=523787117

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:111.220.254.32

Comments:

Repeated edits, which are potentially self-interest edits based on the content that is added back into the entry. Have previously attempted to discuss in talk page of article but user is not interested in discussing Apollo Credence (talk) 04:44, 19 November 2012 (UTC)>

• Comment I'm going to go out on a limb here but I have to say you haven't requested that the user visits the talk page of the article very well at all. One mention of it was made in an edit summary, but you never mentioned it or warned them prior to the reverts on their talk page, IPs are humans too (See WP:HUMAN) and should be treated in a similar regard to other editors. As far as I can tell the only things wrong with the IP user's edits was that they never included any sources for their rephrases, barring the content regarding the "Australian Independents political party" which is currently disputed on the talk page. Personally, you could have just removed that content and asked the user via their talk page to discuss the issue as quite commonly, new or anonymous users miss or don't read edit summaries. Now, I'm not siding with them, but simply saying that to my eye it looks like you were as bad as that editor in terms of lack of communication and I don't see reasonable doubt that their edits merit an exception from the WP:3RR guidelines for all editors, including yourself. + Crashdoom 12:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I generally agree with Crashdoom here. Also, given that the IP editor likely hopped IPs, they probably never saw the 3RR warning. I've semi-protected the article for 1 week to force both editors to discuss the matter. I will say in closing, though, that I find it very strange that an editor with less than 10 edits made there way to this noticeboard to file a 3RR report. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Gilabrand reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: )

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

• Revert:

The Golan Heights article is under a 1rr: "In accordance with Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Discretionary sanctions, editors of this article are restricted to 1 revert per 24 hours and MUST explain the revert on the talk page. Violations of this restriction will lead to blocks.", the warning is shown when someone edits the article, Gilabrand has also personally received a warning about the rules at here talkpage, that she must discuss here reverts at the talkpage:

Here Gilabrand ads two images of synagogues in the Golan Heights article, here: and here: .

The article already had one image from a synagogue in the article, so I revert here: and explain at the talkpage that three images of synagogues is excessive: .

She reverts me without discussing here revert at the talkpage:. A clear breach against the rules.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: ]

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 14:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

User:128.2.22.179 reported by Dougweller (talk) (Result: Hugs > Blocks )_Blocks_)-2012-11-19T15:59:00.000Z">

Page: Kamal Salibi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 128.2.22.179 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 04:02, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")
2. 04:10, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")
3. 04:16, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")
4. 15:34, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")
5. 15:51, 19 November 2012 (edit summary: "/* Arabian Judah theory */")

• Diff of warning: here

—Dougweller (talk) 15:59, 19 November 2012 (UTC)_Blocks_)"> _Blocks_)">

May I ask, with deference to Dougweller ofcourse, that this be put on hold. The user has made an account under SBOKSMATI89 (talk · contribs), and I'm trying to engage him on the talk page, with some success. He's confused and doesn't know any of the wikijargon that was being thrown at him. Not an excuse, certainly not for some of his comments, but still... if it can be solved without blocking.. Yazan (talk) 16:32, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I would be fine waiting and seeing. --Jprg1966  16:42, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we were able to reach an acceptable compromise here. I've also left the user some links to our policies to ponder over. I think this should be that for the moment. Yazan (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all for your help, seems settled now. No need to block. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Resolved --Jayron32 06:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Vice regent reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: )

Page: Operation Pillar of Defense (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article is under ARBPIA guidelines and subject to 1rr

• 1st revert: - moves Mahmoud Sadallah controversy from casualty section to the timeline undoing this and this edit. Sourced material added here that "Some claims by Palestinian officials regarding casualties have proven controversial" mysteriously vanishes.
• 2nd revert: Again removes this section
• 3rd revert: and moves it to the timeline. Sourced material that "Some claims by Palestinian officials regarding casualties have proven controversial" sneakily vanishes in the process as does a source. VR has not discussed this at all.
• 4th revert: attenuates the import of a regular news article contrary to how it is reported.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I have requested that VR self-reverts his undiscussed removal of sourced material, sources themselves, and other modifications but this has been ignored. In addition, his edit summaries and ostensible "content moves" have disguised deceptive content removal too.

Ankh.Morpork 17:14, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The "1st revert" is not a revert. Who did I revert in moving content from one section to another? No one had done that before.

The "2nd revert" and "3rd revert" are consecutive edits of mine in which I'm moving the maerial (by removing from one section and adding to another).

The "4th revert" is not a revert. It is in fact an attempt at attributing the sources. It is not as if the attributions were previously removed and I'm restoring them.

I acknowledge that I have made 1 revert in the past 24-hours. (by moving content to another section). AnkhMorpork has also reverted (by moving content to another section) in 2 non-consecutive edits (), which could theoretically count for 2 reverts, minutes apart.

I also see that I only made it after discussion (that I initiated). Infact the last comment in the discussion is mine. I'm still waiting for AnkhMorpork to respond. I will continue to discuss and avoid making any other reverts.VR _talk 17:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• You didn't just move content, you also deceptively removed content as demonstrated above. Please restore this. The changes that you decided to incorporate were never discussed. DO NOT remove my comment again. Ankh.Morpork 17:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I removed "Some claims by Palestinian officials regarding casualties have proven controversial" and instead put "One Palestinian casualty is believed to have died from a Palestinian rocket, although this is disputed."

The source actually says "But there were signs on Saturday that not all the Palestinian casualties have been the result of Israeli air strikes. The highly publicised death of four-year-old Mohammed Sadallah appeared to have been the result of a misfiring home-made rocket, not a bomb dropped by Israel."

I feel my sentence is a better representation of the source. I am also open to fixing this so it is acceptable to most people editing the page.

In any case, this board is not for discussing content disputes, but for reporting revert violations. Do you agree that I have only made 1 revert in the past 24 hours (and as have you)?VR _talk 17:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is here.VR _talk 18:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• My removal of your comment was an editing overlap. I apologize for any error on my part. On the other hand you modified my comment. Presumably that was an error too? There's no need to capitalize your words. There is also no need to leave mean messages on my talk page over this. This is an error that happens, and apparently you did it too. Please assume good faith.VR _talk 18:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• View of an outside editor, you both need to stay calm and take time to discuss things, if it gets to this point that you need administrator intervention, you can't be doing something right and probably need to take a break or request a WP:RfC/WP:DR. However, looking at your talk pages and the article's talk page, there's at least some form of discussion going on. You really should not need administrator intervention because you're both editors in good standing and should be aware of the restrictions on the articles you're editing, however, I believe that an edit notice making people aware that the article is under 1RR could be beneficial but that may not be practical. + Crashdoom 00:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers reported by User:Davykamanzi (Result: Banana Fingers, 1 month; Davykamanzi, 24 hours)

Page: 2012 CECAFA Cup (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Banana Fingers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

Comments: Violation of the policies on ownership of articles, assuming good faith and etiquette on Misplaced Pages. Constantly reverting my edits on the 2012 CECAFA Cup article and also ignoring and reverting my messages on his talk page. Davykamanzi → talk · contribs 18:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Note. I blocked Banana Fingers for violating 3RR and for egregious personal attacks (the user has been blocked twice previously for personal attacks). I felt compelled to block Davykamanzi for 24 hours for a clear 3RR violation.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:DrKiernan reported by User:Miesianiacal (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 05:33, 3 November 2012

• 1st revert: 20:18, 18 November 2012‎
• 2nd revert: 20:23, 18 November 2012‎
• 3rd revert: 21:07, 18 November 2012
• 4th revert: 20:29, 19 November 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: In edit summary at 21:12, 18 November 2012. User has also been editing on Misplaced Pages for some time and has previously been blocked more than once for edit warring.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Discussion started by Miesianiacal at Talk:George VI#Ireland at 20:38, 18 November 2012. Note: each revert removes the maintenance tag(s) indicating the content is in dispute.

Comments:
As the fourth revert listed above came barely 11 minuntes after the 24 hour period expired, this appears to be a case of gaming the system.

The same user was also yesterday edit warring (and technically violated 3RR) at Elizabeth II:

• Reverting to 16:17, 15 November 2012:
  • 20:11, 18 November 2012‎
  • 20:25, 18 November 2012‎
  • 21:26, 18 November 2012‎
• Reverting to 09:56, 8 January 2012:
  • 22:40, 18 November 2012‎
• Discussion started by Miesianiacal at Talk:Elizabeth II#Explanation required at 21:29, 18 November 2012

Ħ MIESIANIACAL 21:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

More than one user, but especially User:Melmerme/92.4.136.82, reported by User:220.255.2.138 (Result: Semi)

Page: Michael Jackson's health and appearance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Melmerme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)/92.4.136.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User:Melmerme is editwarring against more than one editor while logged out.

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User has been warned by others as well.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This is a WP:GA article and is quickly becoming not one. 220.255.2.138 (talk) 01:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The editor very likely has a registered sockpuppet. 220.255.2.123 (talk) 01:32, 20 November 2012‎ (UTC)

• Personally, I'd like to see why you think User:92.4.136.82 is User:Melmerme, the user doesn't appear to have as many reverts from just looking at their edits. Personally, I think you need to assume good faith with the user editor, as for the IP it does show signs of edit warring, but there are no attempts to warn them about their actions. While it is edit warring, you still need to warn them so they could make a pre-emptive decision and even see that their actions are seen as wrong by community consensus, some newbies are confused by the jargen we use on Misplaced Pages, such as our policies and acronyms for them. Lastly, I don't think you should assume that the IP is identical to the editor without basis, if you really feel strongly about it, petition a Checkuser action against them and see where it goes, personally, I wouldn't endorse it even if I could because I don't see enough evidence to support it and frankly  CheckUser is not for fishing. + Crashdoom 01:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) If you feel the users are sockpuppets, you need to use WP:SPI. However, you will need some form of evidence that I don't feel is present here. + Crashdoom 01:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm certain that Melmerme is 92.4.136.82 because the article is not a high-traffic article and Melmerme was previously the only recent editor making such arguments/making such edits. The IP showed up when Melmerme didn't get his or her way. WP:DUCK definitely applies here. No one has bitten Melmerme; people have taken the time to explain to Melmerme about policies and guidelines, and have asked Melmerme/the IP to discuss these issues on the talk page and gain WP:CONSENSUS for his or her changes. Melmerme has insisted that we should remove or add material based on what he or she perceives to be offensive or false -- rationale not based on Misplaced Pages policies or guidelines (except for in the case of Misplaced Pages:Offensive material); ones that go against them. The IP has been warned. The IP has clearly read the edit history asking him or her to discuss the matter on the talk page. The IP continued edit warring and did not deny being Melmerme. A warning doesn't have to be placed on the IP's talk page for the IP to be sufficiently warned, especially when that IP is no doubt the offending registered editor. And there is no question that the IP is edit warring. As for CheckUsers, CheckUsers usually don't publicly tie IP accounts to registered editors. 220.255.2.142 (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Result: Article semiprotected one month. Two different IPs have broken 3RR. I don't see a 3RR violation by Melmerme. The IPs show no sign of waiting for consensus on Talk, so it is hard to see them as good faith editors. There were no problems from 220.255.2.142 but he has not edited the article. EdJohnston (talk) 03:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Just read on the talk page about sock puppet and then looked it up on Wiki. I'm not using 2 accounts to access Wiki? I barely have time to even post here, much less find my way around. I think this article is being almost vandalized at this point in time, and it's not being done by me. I was told to go to the talk page to discuss some issues for a concensus, and that is what I had done. Janetrocks has made some inappropriate edits to this article, and another poster/editor agreed with me. So now I'm being told I'm a sock puppet for someone else? I think there are some editors here that have an intent to not post accurate information and disguise it under the rules of Wiki however they can. Even though Wiki allows you to write this stuff about a deceased individual, there is no page for anyone else like it except King Tut. I think it's disrespectful and just tabloid garbage if it's not factual. If done right, it could at least be educational. I thought Wiki was a more trusted source that it appears. How can this be rated a "good" article anymore? Can that rating be changed? Thank you. Melmerme (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Ring Cinema reported by User:Andrzejbanas (Result: )

Page: Caché (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ring Cinema (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:
Just would like to add that this user has been at my back ever since we've had similar edit disputes on the article on the White Ribbon article He's arguing something about an award ceremony. From the discussion on the talk page he is ignoring WP:CIVIL and at this point, I think he's just trolling me. Help?Andrzejbanas (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2012 (UTC) -->

Since Andrzejbanas has no basis for the change he'd like to make, this is apparently his recourse. I have reported him for violating 3RR below. Similarly, on The White Ribbon he refuses to revert to the last consensus version and discuss, despite repeated requests. --Ring Cinema (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of The White Ribbon, Ring Cinema continues to edit war on this article too:

• 1st revert: diff
• 2nd revert: diff
• 3rd revert: diff
• 4th revert: diff
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff
• 7th revert: diff
• 8th revert: diff
• 9th revert: diff
• 10th revert: diff
• 11th revert: diff
• 12th revert: diff
• 13th revert: diff

These span from the 14th to the 20th of November. Note that Ring Cinema has been blocked five previous times for edit waring, most recently in May of this year. The article? The White Ribbon. He continues to own articles and completly ignore the 3 revert rule when new information/sources are added. Lugnuts 09:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Andrzejbanas reported by ] (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: Although this user is aware that his edits are not supported by consensus, guidelines (which he's cited), or the sources, he persists in reverting when I return to the last consensus version of the article. A similar problem is ongoing at another article (The White Ribbon).
--Ring Cinema (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ring, I've asked in several occasions. What rules I'm breaking. You never reply and talk about me and User:Lugnuts are against you. I really don't know what you are planning to accomplish with reverting posts while discussion is going on, ignoring talk page discussions and sourced material. Andrzejbanas (talk) 03:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Untrue. Andrzejbanas cited the guideline himself, it was pointed out he's violating it, there's no consensus for his change, and the sources are in conflict on this content issue. For that reason, I believe it is correct to keep the last consensus version and discuss. He's aware of all that, it was all pointed out. He just doesn't comply with normal procedure. Maybe he knows why. --Ring Cinema (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Ahh...why do I think this is only going to lead us to both getting a warning? :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Note, this is in relation to the above edit waring done by Ring Cinema on several articles. Something he's been blocked for many times in the past. Lugnuts 09:06, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Drmies reported by User:71.131.182.86 (Result: )

Summer of Love
Drmies

The article in question had been tagged as `needing a serious rewrite' for a number of years now.

I am 72 years old, an accomplished literary professor and music-industry author, and I find it effronterous to have an article upon which I have been working for the past two days straight being repeatedly reverted by someone who was not even born yet when the events took place, rather than having been at both versions as I have been.

S/he keeps referring to the newly rewritten article as being `too chatty', however I have since read in numerous administrative forums thereon that `a certain chattiness lends itself to the greater acceptance by a wider audience' of a topic heretofore deemed to be somewhat if not totally dry and stuffy-sounding such as history.

I have informed the user of the same and the reversions appear to have stopped for the time being, but I would still like to advise the administrators of the occurrence.

Placed a brief paragraph onto the article's Talk Page (under `diamone'} describing a few reasons for the rewrite and highlighting a few of the examples.

The page may need to be protected.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.182.86 (talk • contribs)

Credentials are irrelevant. Noone here cares about them and we will ignore them, because on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. Ageism is inappropriate. Just because another user may (or may not) be younger is no reason to dismiss them. Looking over the article history in question, I see that Drmies has left messages in the edit summaries (such as "improperly verified, chatty, not notable," and "rm tripe, galleries, spam, personal memoir"), while you have not. Looking over your contributions, you have not attempted to discuss things with him at all. Did you even consider asking him why he was reverting you? Did you consider asking him what changes he thinks needs to be made to comply with our policies and guidelines?

This encyclopedia only works because editors cooperate with each other. You have not tried to talk with him about this, you did not even tell him about this report (as a banner at the top of this page clearly asks you to). Speaking of messages at tops of pages, the edit window features a note at the top saying "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Misplaced Pages can be edited, used and redistributed by other people at will." Ian.thomson (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Dear IP, I'll have you know that I am also a professor of literature (what are the odds?) though my chair wouldn't wish to claim that I was accomplished, unless he needs to make that claim to make us look better. AND I was born before Woodstock. So there. Then again, it must have been around the second summer of love that I last popped acid...

There is no edit warring here, of course, and I didn't consciously revert anything. I believe my edits are withing Misplaced Pages guidelines for tone ("chatty" here also pointed to argumentative synthesis) and verifiability. Mind you, encyclopedic articles don't have to be drily written, but an article on Misplaced Pages should be, tone-wise, a million miles away from that helicopter day. While I appreciate your efforts to improve our coverage, they must be within guidelines and policy. If you will allow me, let me give you a few pointers. Such matters must, indeed, be discussed first, and edit summaries are a good start. Also, it's frowned upon to drag editors off to noticeboards rightaway, and notifying them is a must. Finally, if the article were to be protected you wouldn't be able to edit it, whereas I would since I have an account and it's auto-confirmed; moreover, I am in fact an admin, the kind of person who would have to decide on protection. I suggest you sign up and get an account. Thank you again for your efforts, and with kind regards, Drmies (talk) 14:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Bonzu reported by User:Danlaycock (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
After much edit warring over which flag to use in the infobox of New Caledonia, there was a discussion on the talk page three months ago which concluded that both should be used. Since that time, there has been ongoing edit warring to remove one flag or the other (ie. and ). Bonzu refuses to discuss the matter on the talk page, and instead accuses other editors of inciting race riots by including a flag on a wikipedia page: , . TDL (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• This is pretty clear: 12-hour block (a short one, given the newness of the editor) for breaking the bright line of three reverts. I'd like to add, though, that the talk page discussion is not much clearer than mud, since the discussion very quickly discussed little more than the position of the two flags relative to each other. If this is a persistent issue, protection is the last option: the first option is probably to start a quick RfC on one of the issues--two flags or one. A second issue may be the position, but it would be helpful to admins and to participants to separate the two issues. Drmies (talk) 15:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

User:Foreverduke10000 & User:197.237.37.115 reported by User:Geraldo Perez (Result: )

Page: List of Ben 10: Omniverse episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Foreverduke10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a.k.a. 197.237.37.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

As 197.237.37.115

• 1st revert: 16:27, 12 November 2012‎ ‎
• 2nd revert: 09:38, 13 November 2012‎

Article protected. After new account autoconfirmed resumed as Foreverduke10000

• 3rd revert: 13:59, 18 November 2012‎
• 4th revert: 12:02, 19 November 2012‎
• 5th revert: 09:41, 20 November 2012‎

Diff of edit warring:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User notified of discussion at and

Comments:
Editors, including this one, have asserted that this show ended season 1 and started season 2 the next week without providing any references to support that assertion. They have modified this article to reflect that assertion and I have been undoing that change as dubious and unreferenced. I have requested references in the edit summaries and started a discussion on the talk page to try to see what is happening with the show. Some good background is in that discussion. The main editor of the Bulgarian wiki article had lots of inputs and both this article and the Bulgarian one were changed to reflect that. This particular editor has ignored requests for references and has refused to communicate and collaborate. Just obdurately asserting his change in the article. After the article was protected, the IP created a user account and resumed immediately after that account was auto confirmed. The logged in account seems to have been created with the primary purpose to edit war his version into a semi-protected article. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

] reported by User:Sepsis II (Result: )

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Very clear break of 1RR of which the editor is aware. Sepsis II (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring