Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:47, 3 April 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:Kermansh reported by User:Fram (Result: A day)

Page: List of people known as The Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kermansh (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:

Comments:

User has also acted vindictive by reverting completely unrelated edits made by the first user who reverted him on this page, including a removal of an AfD message and a few others. Fram (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Hounding is obvious and editor could be blocked for that alone. I'd block for the 3RR but I've reverted this editor before this was brought. Dougweller (talk) 15:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of a day. I have no objections if another admin wants to increase the block due to hounding. Salvio 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sockpuppet, see Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/Kiaxar/Archive. Dougweller (talk) 09:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Nikosgreencookie reported by User:SentientContrarian (Result: Both 24h)

Page: Takis Fotopoulos (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Nikosgreencookie (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:

And on my talk page, I have been repeatedly harassed by this user who immediately accused me of vandalism.

Comments:

I ran into this article on Mr. Takis Fotopoulos, saw that the majority of the sources were either primary sources or sources affiliated with him or owned by him (as in the article on Jamie Zawinski and the user I am reporting started immediately putting up "vandalism" warnings on my Talk page and accusing me - without the slightest piece of evidence - of being here only to attack Mr. Takis Fotopoulos, the subject of the article. And now he even claims that I am... threatening the supporters of Inclusive Democracy (the political movement founded by Mr. Takis Fotopoulos). SentientContrarian (talk) 16:44, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked - 24 hours. One did not break 3RR, but this is clearly edit warring. Neither party seems to have a WP:BLP immunity for any of their reverts. EdJohnston (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:70.66.196.240 reported by User:Trivialist (Result: 48 hours)

Page: April Fools' Day (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 70.66.196.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User persists in adding link to http://www.kevinkatovic.biz/blog/april-fools-day-pranks-for-2012/ , in some edits replacing an existing link while claiming to be deleting spam. Trivialist (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours For the continued reverting and spamming. Kuru (talk) 03:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:McKhan reported by User:Baboon43 (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: McKhan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=484873085

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=484919375
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485059179
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485067638
• 4th revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485082112

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Al-Ahbash Comments:
Mckhan broke the 3rr rule and he has been warned previously by others to not revert other peoples work on his talk page Baboon43 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that you feel this way but I have not broken the 3RR rule. Thanks. McKhan (talk)

Technically true, but the pattern of reverts is clearly edit warring. A really bad idea on an article that being closely watched. Kuru (talk) 03:08, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48/72 hours respectively. Warning left on article talk page for future discussions. Wifione 03:06, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:AmandaParker reported by User:Baboon43 (Result: Reporting editor blocked)

Page: Al-Ahbash (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: AmandaParker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=484806958
• 2nd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485047664
• 3rd revert: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Al-Ahbash&oldid=485066436

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:
user will not discuss in talk page just edits and reverts work and has been warned about reverts previously Baboon43 (talk) 02:34, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Reporting editor Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. See above report. Wifione 03:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Wisdomtenacityfocus reported by User:DVdm (Result: )

Page: Template:Frank Zappa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

1st revert on 26-Jan-2012, without edit summary. Pointy edit doubling a half live/half studio album.

2nd revert on 24-Feb-2012 with edit symmary "reverting vandalism"

3rd revert on 24-Feb-2012.

4th revert on 31-Mar-2012}}, skipping 3 intermediate versions

5th revert on 1-Apr-2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: See message at template talk and long thread at Talk:Frank Zappa#Zappa Template., involving several users.

Comments:

User Wisdomtenacityfocus (talk · contribs) seems to behave in a rather disruptive way at Template:Frank Zappa and Frank Zappa discography. Yesterday I put this message at user's talk page ().

Recent behaviour at Template:Frank Zappa is i.m.o. wp:disruptive.

• Against strong consensus (see talk page Talk:Frank_Zappa#Zappa_Template and Template_talk:Frank_Zappa), user have made 5 reverts of a long standing and stable version of the template:

First change to split on 19-Jan-2012, followed by properly motivated undo by 113.117.201.52 on 26-Jan-2012

#1 revert on 26-Jan-2012, without edit summary. Pointy edit doubling a half live/half studio album.

#2 revert on 24-Feb-2012 with edit symmary "reverting vandalism"

#3 revert on 24-Feb-2012.

#4 revert on 31-Mar-2012}}, skipping 3 intermediate versions

#5 revert on 1-Apr-2012 <== New

• Meanwhile, concerning placement of album Sheik Yerbouti:

Edit by Aerosmith366 on 21-Jan-2012

Your #1 revert on 25-Jan-2012, followed by revert by Aerosmith366 on 25-Jan-2012

Your #2 revert on 25-Jan-2012, followed by revert by 113.117.201.52 on 26-Jan-2012

...

Your #3 revert on 4-Feb-2012

• Meanwhile, on 11-Feb-2012, in response to my referring to Frank Zappa discography, this comment and shortly after, this pointy split of the discography article.

User was pointed to the following items at wp:disruptive.

• Misplaced Pages:Disruptive#Attempts_to_evade_detection:

"Their edits occur over a long period of time; in this case, no single edit may be clearly disruptive, but the overall pattern is disruptive."

• Misplaced Pages:Disruptive#Signs_of_disruptive_editing:

"'...'continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors."

"repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits."

I asked to user to please not continue this form of slow edit warring by reverting again, unless they can establish a strong consensus on Template_talk:Frank_Zappa and/or Talk:Frank_Zappa#Zappa_Template.

This resulted in

• #5 revert with edit summary "First of all, if you have no problem edit warring without consensus, why give me shit when I clearly do have consensus to do this?", also undoing two formatting issues by different users
• dismissal of talk page message with edit summary "No consensus? BULLSHIT."
• accusing me of ignoring consensus and of changing the template (which I have never reverted), with edit summary "Wrong. YOU are ignoring consensus. Stop making the template look worse..."
• reverting discography again, undoing 10 revisions by 8 users, with edit summary "rv to last good version".
• appeal "There has been repeated attempts to vandalize..." at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Albums. Apparently this is not the first appeal over there, see also previous appeal on 2-feb-2012, which got no response.

DVdm (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User was notified of this thread on their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 07:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• This is not edit warring. This is a content dispute. Handle these things the way they're supposed to be handled by trying to seek opinions from outside of the small circle of editors that usually care about the content. All my edits were justified by style guidelines. Yours weren't. Also, I have every right to say what I want in edit summaries on my own talk page edits. Why are you giving me shit for something that I have a right to do? When I improve articles, you should respond by thanking me, not harassing me because someone else besides you edits an article you're engaged in. YOU don't own articles. Let someone else contribute to the process. --WTF (talk) 18:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - After having removed this entire tread, user Wisdomtenacityfocus opened a dispute resolution noticeboard case , . I merely made a short remark () there, as I don't think this is a content dispute, but rather a user who refuses to respect talk page consensus. Note that user also accuses me of ownership and vandalism, which is by no means the case. - DVdm (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - User has downgraded article classes of original discography, with edit summary "Since vandalism, quality of list has gone down, thus downgrade.", again labeling an edit with which they disagree as vandalism. - DVdm (talk) 20:42, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• You removed massive chunks of the discography, clogged everything together despite clear distinction between compilation, studio and live releases, added links to articles which don't exist (Greasy Love Songs, a redirect to Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, the album of which GLS is an alt-title reissue) and an album which is claimed as a Zappa covers album but is actually a distinct solo album by Flo & Eddie which has only one Zappa song (Illegal, Immoral and Fattening). You reverted an article based on your belief that you own the article. That is vandalism. --WTF (talk) 21:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

And I'm sorry, the quality of the article was downgraded by your edits. Look at Dream Theater discography. Look at The Beatles discography. Look at Miles Davis discography. See a pattern? Notice how these artists' albums are not grouped together regardless of whether it is a live album, a studio album or a compilation produced either for promotion or after the artist's death? There are sources categorizing Zappa's albums thusly. Clearly this is not edit warring, but a content dispute on behalf of your attempt to own the article, list and template. --WTF (talk) 21:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I removed nothing of the discography. Please stop accusing me of things I did not do. I tried to have a conversation with you on the talk page about what other editors prefer. I never reverted anything regarding this issue. You also accused me of "aggressive attempt at article ownership" here. Please retract those accusations of bad faith. - DVdm (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - I have put a 4th level warning for personal attacks at User talk:Wisdomtenacityfocus: . - DVdm (talk) 22:13, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Note - In this statement at Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard clerk TransporterMan (talk · contribs) wholly agrees with my analysis () that "that it is incumbent upon WNT to build a new consensus if he/she wishes to change the article, that he has not yet done so, and that pursuant to the consensus policy that the template and discography must retain the same organization as they had before he/she began making changes." Clerck requested WNT to produce a policy or guideline that would overrule the quoted policy regarding an established consensus of the community. - DVdm (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Jaychandra reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 hours)

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• 8th revert:
• 9th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: There are warnings and explanations all over their talk page over the last few days

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Kurmi#Shudra and subsequent sections.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Four clear reverts in the last 24 hours; was warned. Kuru (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Greyhood reported by User:Malick78 (Result: )

Page: Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Greyhood (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

The links at times contain a lot of info, but the main points that have been reverted 4 times are in the cruft-filled "Symbolism" section; about the gait of a troika, a "troika-bird" and some references to Gogol and Dead Souls. The first "revert" has a summary of "expand, add sources" - but readds sections from a previous version word for word - and hence I think I'm right in considering it a revert.

As can be seen here, there were two other reverts at 17:33 and 17:53 of a huge amount of material which partly overlaps with other material in later reverts, all within the 24 hours, but not the material I'm primarily reporting about.

The page is up for a DYK, which could be why the padding keeps being readded.

I previously warned Greyhood about 3RR here two months ago regarding a different page. That time he self-reverted, but not without an accusation or two of his own.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments.
Update: Greyhood has just self-reverted here. I feel he doesn't particularly feel sorry though - shown by his accusation (again, like last time) - that I am "gaming the system". I'm not. On Vladimir Zhirinovsky's donkey video, on Putin, and 2011–2012 Russian protests, Greyhood has over the last few months consistently engaged in nigh-on edit warring (sometimes in conjunction with the about to be banned Russavia (btw, Greyhood provided the anti-Polish cartoon which is partly leading to Russavia's ban)) and should learn a lesson from this.

Malick78 (talk) 12:53, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've made a technical self-revert. The other editors asked me for the sources - I've provided them. If the sources were asked in correct and respectful way, that is by adding "citation needed" tags, I'd simply replace the tags with sources. But instead the whole material was outright deleted. So how could I have provided the requested sources without restoring it? Note that the editor Toddy1 on the talk found my addition of sources OK and helpful. GreyHood 13:21, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
• Note that editor Toddy1 reverted my self-revert . GreyHood 13:41, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Hang on. This looks like gaming the system. User:Malick78 generally agrees with User:Mootros and both of them usually disagree with User:Greyhood.

A neutral person would also have noted that User:Mootros is deleting the same material, over and over and over again. Notice how the paragraph explaining the naming of the donkey keeps being deleted (along with other stuff) in the following four edits

• 16:13-17:10 1 April 2012.
• 17:40 1 April 2012
• 06:54-07:43 2 April 2012
• 11:23-11:43 2 April 2012

Whatever is done to Greyhood, should also be done to Mootros and Malick78.--Toddy1 (talk) 13:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Erm, hang on: I've never had any contact with Mootros ever on WP. This is the first page we've ever been on together (as far as I know). I've never sent Mootros a message, and I don't think I've ever addressed Mootros directly on the talk page. How exactly have I gamed the system? This is an absurd, disingenuous, wild accusation. If you're suggesting that he and I both dislike cruft, then erm, I can't deny that. I haven't yet checked his edits above - but from what I've seen his edits have generally been fair and constructive. I'm still puzzled by how I've been accused of something. Are you saying I've coordinated edits with him? If so, that's simply a huge mistake (/barefaced lie).

"both of them usually disagree with User:Greyhood" - Greyhood argues with everyone except the about-to-be-banned Russavia, and Toddy1! There are a dozen editors out there who, using your definition, are coordinating against him. He has weird views and likes to goad people. Check out the Putin talk page, for instance, or his co-authored with Russavia Polandball article, designed to goad Poles.

The fact that Toddy1 accuses me of "gaming the system", the phrase Greyhood used on his talk page regarding my actions, suggests Toddy1 and Greyhood are very close and, erm, gaming the system. As for me and Mootros, as said above, - don't know the guy/girl, never interacted with him/her. Feel free to prove me wrong. But don't make unfounded accusations to get Greyhood out of a jam.

Oh, and lastly, I see Toddy1 readded the material Greyhood deleted with his self-revert. Shame you couldn't have waited for an independent view of things here. (Btw, one problem with the info added is that it's sourced to an article which contains anti-semitic comments, showing it's not RS. On the talk page, Greyhood says he "can't see anything anti-semitic there" (I'm paraphrasing him). This is the level of discussion on the talk page, unfortunately :( And why there's an edit war going on... ) Malick78 (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Malick78, your usual accusations on my part are irrelevant here. You have a long history of personal attacks and harassment against me, and please don't add more harassment on every next opportunity. I had no off-wiki contacts with user Toddy1, and whether you had contact with Mootros is really irrelevant - you game the system in the sense that you try to preclude me from editing some articles when you know perfectly that sources and editorial reason are on my side and you could do nothing about this except of accusing me in minorish mistakes or a breach of technical rules - in which case I'm always ready to self-revert and to concede I was wrong in overdoing with reverting, as well as I always recognize my mistakes. Another your attempt to undermine mine edits is your made-up claim of "anti-semitism" in one of the sources - the source just mentioned the Jewish ancestry of a subject of the article in a neutral way (is any mention of someone's Jewish ancestry antisemetism?), and the source is taken from the official site of the Club of the Heads of Regions of Russia, which is a high profile political institution, and mind you, Russia is multinational country with one of the regions being the Jewish Autonomous Oblast whose head is a Jew, Alexander Vinnikov - and after that you expect to see anti-semetism on the site of the Heads of Regions of Russia? Of course there is no anti-semitism, and overall there could be no anti-semitism on official high-profile political sites in Russia - otherwise there would be a huge political scandal. So please stop your gaming. GreyHood 16:09, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

A good faith warning of edit warring and reporting here would have warned and perhaps later reported both editors. Unfortunately Malick78 only reported the editor he disagrees with across a number of issues. This was not a good faith way to behave.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't notice Mootros's alleged breaking of the rules. I just noticed yet another revert from Greyhood, and focused on that. But the fact that Mootros may have broken the rules, doesn't let Greyhood off the hook. Please assume good faith, btw. Both of you.

As for racism (and I'm sure this isn't the place to go into it in depth), the source says "True, says everywhere, that he's been baptised, but it's not been excluded, that the leader of the LDPR, himself not realising it, is affected by rudimentary Judaism. He has not changed his genes." ("Правда, он везде говорит, что крещен, но не исключено, что лидер ЛДПР, сам того не осознавая, находится под влиянием рудиментарного иудаизма. Генетику никто не отменял.") I defy any non-involved editor here not to find an unsavoury anti-semitic subtext there. The subject of the article is Orthodox Christian, and the source is making snide comments about the fact that "really, he's kind of still Jewish". Malick78 (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

If you have a goal of finding an antisemitic context at whatever cost, surely you would be able to find it. As I said: if some ancestors of the protagonist of the article would have been in some way associated with troika harness (another subject of the article) - for example they would have been troika keepers or troika riders - and if some source would have written about those "troika genes" in connection to the subject of the article - would you call that racist? Of course not. GreyHood 16:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The guy is whipping a donkey in the video, and he compares the donkey to Russia! His Jewish ancestry (from just one side, his father), is completely irrelevant.Malick78 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The source analyses the symbolism of the video - and yes the video is symbolical - the guy claims that and multiple sources agree, and most educated persons in Russia or specialists in Russian literature would easily recognize that symbolism. That you deny it just show that you have not studied the subject and available sources well enough. The source analyses different aspects of symbolism in intricate detail, and in one aspect finds a possible connection to a Biblical subject, Messiah, and focuses on the fact that Messiah is relatively more important for the Old Testament and for Judaism, reminding that the author has Jewish background. This one is excessively intricate and loose connection in my view, but not entirely unreasonable - who knows what family traditions were in the guy's family, and as an Orthodox Christian and PhD in philology he must know the basics of the Old Testament anyway. The same source quite reasonably claims that the guy has a Soviet school background and that's why he must know the troika symbolism from the Russian literature course which includes Dead Souls by Nikolai Gogol which includes a famous "troika-bird scene".

Really, all this pretty irrelevant to the 3RR, except for the fact that you have reverted me on a made-up pretext of non-existing "anti-semitism" in a source of a kind where anti-semitism is prohibited, and then I had to restore my edits adding more sources by the way. GreyHood 17:47, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not the source is anti-semitic is not relevant.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It is worth adding that Mootros and Greyhood are both good editors, who in their zeal to improve the article made a mistake without realising it. It would have been right to have warned both of them equally, and to report the first one who continued edit warring after the warning.--Toddy1 (talk) 16:43, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I and others have previously warned Greyhood about edit warring. It has made little difference to his editing. Mootros seems more intent on constructive editing.Malick78 (talk) 17:22, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I did not want to talk about Mootros here, since I believe he finally has engaged in some form of dialogue with me, but you provoke me, Malik78, with your phrase "Mootros seems more intent on constructive editing." On 27 March, after Mootros started mass unexplained removals and ignored the call to respect WP:BRD, I proposed to avoid edit warring and said I would wait for the explanation of Mootros removals: "Mootros, I would not like edit-warring and I'm waiting for explanation for your removals (why this stuff was irrelevant) and why the used Russian sources were not good enough." Since that moment I ceased editing the article until the 1 April. In my second to last post in this section, I explained in detail why the removals by Mootros were wrong. I waited almost 5 days until the 1 April for explanations of these removals from Mootros, but the answer to my concrete and detailed post never came in that section. And subsequently he simply continued his removals, unexplained or poorly explained, even though an uninvolved editor came and asked him Why did you revert to the crappy version? GreyHood 17:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I looked at Greyhood's talk page and found the following:

• "Warning' at the same time as reporting here, 12:37, 2 April 2012 .
• Warning regarding Protests following the 2011 Russian elections 23:12, 5 February 2012 . This resulted in Greyhood self-reverting, but protesting that Malick78 had also made 4 reverts.

--Toddy1 (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, I totally forgot of that. Malick tried to game the system even then, with BLP, as now with anti-semitism. GreyHood 17:50, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted 4 times because Greyhood was adding material that suggested living people, Russian opposition activists, had visited the US embassy for nefarious reasons (the wording made it sound like they had something to hide). It violated WP:BLP, and therefore there was no limit to reverts. That's not gaming the system Greyhood. That is the system.Malick78 (talk) 19:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• That time, on the my last revert I removed the name of the video which was for some reason the source of concern to you - I thought that would be a compromise. But your aim was obviously to remove the entire section, that's why you gamed the system and made me to make revert, himself reverting 4 times on the pretext of BLP. Later the section was restored, but you removed the "embarassment" part from there. Basically, you made those two minor points the pretext for removing the entire section, which you did not like as a fan of the Russian opposition activists. Yet both the video title and the embarassement were all reflected in multiple reliable sources - including the source currently in the article , and there was no point to conceal those facts or to involve WP:BLP - which only states that "Material about living persons added to any Misplaced Pages page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoiding original research." - these conditions were fulfilled. I could have refused to accept your unjustified censorship and your irrelevant BLP excuse that time, but I chose to avoid the dispute. But it was clear that you didn't think about improving the article on the whole - your point was to remove the entire section inconvenient to you by whatever means, and you gamed the system, using a small part as a reason for wholesale removal, misapplying BLP and ignoring the proposed consensus.
• This time you again asked me to revert - despite the fact that it was already clear that such a revert would turn the Symbolism section into nonsense lacking cohesion and important context. Possibly you hoped that I would even remove the entire section in my self-revert. You ignored that in my last edit I added new relevant sources proving that I was right and that the material included to that section was all relevant, justified and needed in the article. Toddy1 did a right thing to revert my self-revert with a summary "this is silly - gaming the system", because by making me do it you degraded the article and disrupted the work on it - again, your aim was to game the system and to remove the material you did not like.
• Basically you, Malick78, as well as Mootros, did not show any respect to the editor who created the article and added 99% of stuff and all sources - i.e. me. Instead of placing tags you constatly deleted the material completely, refusing to pre-discuss your removals on talk, to respect WP:BRD and to wait until we would reach consensus on talk or until I would provide sources- which I provided excessively. Mootros further complicated this by continuous placing of irrelevant tags to the article - which he was not able to justify. His/her constant merging of sections which should not have been merged also was no good, and (s)he did not discuss it. That all turned the article into a mess (noted by uninvolved editors). I waited for the explanation of Mootros's removals for 5 days - (s)he did not wait, ignored my arguments, ignored calls to discuss on talk until the end of the day today, and ignored WP:BRD. Yes, all that continuous mess resulted in some improvement of the article because I brought many new sources - but that could have been reached in a decent, constructive and respectable way, without constant removals, without reverts of referenced stuff, without ignoring the talk page or not waiting for the answer there. You call Mootros "constructive" - well, could you please name what (s)he or you have actually constructed in the article, other than several misapplied tags, undiscussed confusing merge of sections and constant disruption, which prevented me from adding new sources because you kept deleting the stuff? He got as far as nominated a plausible redirect for deletion, (s)he opened the 2nd and the 3rd standing requests for move on the article's talk page which totally confused the situation with current and future naming, (s)he tried to delete the more images and more text as possible - all ignoring calls to discuss and to reach consensus, ignoring proposed compromises. And I had to work on the article, to try to make a title matching to the name, to search and to add sources despite all this artificially created, disrespectful, and totally unneeded confusion. I was constructive - I created the article, I added sources, I added images, I structured and formatted it - you were just removing, placing unhelpful tags, ignoring BRD and talk page, refusing to wait, to discuss, to seek consensus, trying to delete more and more and more and overall being disruptive. GreyHood 21:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• You mention "disrespect", "BLP", and making the article a "mess", yet this is the article you started with the joke name Zhirinovsky's ass! It was an article named in such a way as to maximise the mocking of the target. How can you use the word "respect"?
• Oh and here, Greyhood has removed a ref after I pointed out the source article was written before the subject of the WP article (the video) was ever made, and therefore couldn't have referred to it (his edit summary goes thus: "indeed, thanks for catching this - I was confused with the combination of words Zhirinovsky, troika, Chichikov and election campaign.. perhaps might be added later as an interesting fact that this comparison preceded the donkey ad"). It just proves my point that Greyhood is taking random articles that mention Zhirinovsky (in passing) and adds them to the article as if they contain notable content. They mostly don't.Malick78 (talk) 21:48, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I've already explained why I created the article under such name - I was using exclusively Russian sources for the coverage of recent events, and I only briefly glanced on the title of the first English-language source which I encountered - that was this: Zhirinovsky Explains why He Swatted Ass. So I used this term.
• I've made a mistake with that source, because it was all pretty confusing and because I had to find new sources in haste - because you guys refuse to wait and just remove stuff and revert - and see where your disruption leads. I still consider this source interesting and worth adding to the article, though in a slightly different capacity - 1) as a source for the novel contents 2) as an interesting fact that the comparison made by this source happened long before the main event of the article, and later was repeated by other commentators. If you can find I've done something wrong with other sources - go on. I do not claim my work was all perfect, but I await constructive help, not unfriendly criticism.
• Yes, everyone should be respectful and follow WP:BRD and never make personal attacks. In particular, you should be grateful to me that I created the article in the first place if you are so interested in it. I really hope that you are interested in improving the article rather than in finding yet another place to conflict with me. GreyHood 22:33, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, saying "I've made a mistake with that source, because it was all pretty confusing and because I had to find new sources in haste - because you guys refuse to wait and just remove stuff and revert - and see where your disruption leads" is not good enough. If you aren't able to be accurate on an encyclopaedia, maybe you should rethink your participation? Blaming others isn't good enough. Here I caught you misrepresenting sources as well, and you just said: "I just used the first figures in the article, without reading it properly." Unfortunately, a pattern is emerging (there was one more time I caught you out doing exactly the same thing on another page, but I haven't yet found it. I'll keep trying).
• As for you innocently calling the article Zhirinovsky's ass, I don't believe that for a second. It was a premeditated joke and was why you had a DYK associated with it for April Fool's Day. Malick78 (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Maybe he reads English? RIANOVOSTI 7 February 2012 has an article entitled "Zhirinovsky explains why he swatted ass".--Toddy1 (talk) 18:35, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:RJFF (Result: )

Page: Bahrani people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ashrf1979 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Thread of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Bahrani people#Phoenician, Chaldean, etc. origins and Talk:Bahrani people#Phoenician+Chaldean+North Arabian =Bahrani people

Comments:

The editor has not breached the 3RR in 24 h, but engages in a long-term edit war on this article (see hist), showing clear indications of article ownership. He/she has been warned of edit warring and/or page ownership at least four times. All attempts to resolve the issue (on the article's talk incl. 3rd opinion, on Ashrf1979's talk page and on my own one) have been effectless. Co-operation and communication with the user seems impossible. --RJFF (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Bittergrey reported by User:WLU (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 15:31, March 31, 2012‎
• 2nd revert: 17:50, April 1, 2012
• 3rd revert: 21:57, April 1, 2012‎
• 4th revert: 10:00, April 2, 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: timestamp debated: Either 11:01 or 07:01, April 2, 2012

(Note the absence of edits between 11:01, April 2 "warning" and AN/3RR filing. BitterGrey (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Perhaps your timestamp is different, mine shows the warning as appearing at 07:01 on April 2nd. WLU (t) (c)Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 10:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I re-checked, and the timestamp quite clearly gives 11:01, 2 April 2012BitterGrey (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

You can set your time and date offset in your preferences. My offest appears to be four hours earlier than yours. If you check the reverts above, I'm guessing they show the following:

• 1st revert: 11:31, March 31, 2012‎
• 2nd revert: 13:50, April 1, 2012
• 3rd revert: 17:57, April 1, 2012‎
• 4th revert: 06:00, April 2, 2012

And for you, the 3RR warning lists 11:01, April 2, 2012] while mine is 07:01. If you check my contributions, you clearly see the warning on your talk page appearing exactly one minute after my third revert. So there is no timestamp debate, we simply have different offsets. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:36, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

So WLU was at 3 reverts in 14 hours when placing the warning... Talk about WP:Kettle! Then he filed this complaint knowing that I hadn't violated 3RR, hoping only to ruin my clean record of never having even been reported here, to make my record more like his. Can I get this complaint stricken from the record? BitterGrey (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Diff of most recent attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

(Link to whole discussion, which I started, including WLU's week of silence. BitterGrey (talk) 19:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC))

Previous attempts are found in the following archive sections:

• FTN 1
• RSN
• FTN 2
• FTN 3

Comments:
It's not a clear three reverts in 24 hours, but I think it's pretty obvious there is a problem. For anyone interested in the content issue, a brief summary follows. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 14:30, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Bittergrey has claimed that the source Cantor, Blanchard and Barbaree (2008) states that pharaphilic infantilism is pedophilia. The actual statement is from page 531 and says:

A literal reading of the statement is that paraphilic infantilism is a form of pedophilia but within the theory of erotic target location errors, the intent of the actual statements are to clearly distinguish between the two. The theory of "erotic target location error" when discussing paraphilic infantilists is that paraphilic infantilists are aroused by the idea of themselves being children and does not to say paraphilic infantilists wish to rape children. Quite the opposite.

The statement on the old version of the page summarized this as follows:

An additional theory is that infantilism is an erotic identity disorder where the erotic fantasy is centered on the self rather than on a sexual partner and results from an erotic targeting location error where the erotic target was children yet becomes inverted. According to this model, proposed by Ray Blanchard and Kurt Freund in 1993, infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child.

(Unsigned comment by WLU)

Sorry for the awkward response: I've never been written up here before, unlike WLU... WLU also seems to have received not just any interaction ban from arbcom, but the archetype of interactions bans.

My Attempt at Discussion

My attempt at discussion started last week. WLU made edits to the article and to the rest of Misplaced Pages, but ignored the discussion until I edited. He has edit warred, because the material doesn't support his position. He has yet to counter or even address the points I raised. His post here includes only a summary, since three locations of the article are affected. To highlight previous discussions:

• Aerobicfox of RSN wrote "Per WP:Exceptional claims require exceptional sources I would like better sourcing for this claim '...infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia' "

• Fifelfoo of RSN wrote "Freund 1993 is a PRIMARY in terms of medical research, it is the first proposal of a theory, and therefore unreliable. Cantor 2009 would be a secondary, but I consider it tainted by association with an author who proposes the theory. Cantor 2009 can be used if independent secondary studies published in appropriate medical forums attest to the uptake of this medical theory. Until someone can demonstrate this, the text should be removed from the article as unverifiable due to failing to meet MEDRS."

• Even WLU's past-supporter FiachraByrne didn't agree with WLU's reading of F&B: "They delineate a small sub-set of paedophiles who self-image as infants or children." That is, F&B wrote about pedophiles, not infantilists. This is why much of the text now being fought over was hidden from August to December.

Please note that WLU's comments above focus solely on one source (CB&B) when the issue is with another source (F&B). F&B discuss pedophilia. It doesn't mention infantilism, and so should not be cited in the paraphilic infantilism article. CB&B is cited in the article either SEVEN or NINE times in the article, depending on which version is active. (Given that CB&B has only one page that mentions infantilism, this seems undue, but isn't the current issue. Outside of this article, CB&B is only cited ONCE in entire English Misplaced Pages: One of the authors self-cited at courtship_disorder.)BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

My reply to the substance of these is here, the summary above isn't really a good summary of the actual discussions. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:12, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

WLU's Year-Long Wikihounding of Me

The real problem is that WLU has been wikihounding me since a debate in Feb 2011. Here is a list of the other articles he and I have had conflicts at, with the dates: (For clarity, I've omitted noticeboards, etc.) As you can see, with only one exception, he came to articles that I was already involved with.

• List of paraphilias(my first edit 2009-05-05 / WLU's first edit 2009-07-13) - WLU edited before conflict, but still not first
• Misplaced Pages talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine) (my first edit 2011-02-19 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-21) - WLU rushed to support a friend's user space ownership rights when the article was not in user space. He ended up "nuking" the talk page. He has been hounding me ever since.
• Paraphilic infantilism(my first edit 2006-01-20 / WLU's first edit 2011-02-28)
• Adult diaper(2010-09-25 / 2011-03-01)
• Diaper fetishism(2006-07-10 / 2011-03-03)
• Infantilism(2007-12-13 / 2011-03-02)
• Talk:Homosexuality(2010-09-27 / 2012-02-05) - WLU reacted to my comment by doing the opposite ... at the less-defended paraphilia article
• Paraphilia(2009-06-25 / 2012-02-05)
• Talk:Andrea James (2012-03-02 / 2012-02-10) - another editor moved the entire discussion from ANI while I was typing
• Sexology(2009-07-06 / 2012-03-04)

WLU has been following me to articles and going out of his way to pick fights.

WLU's most recent attack, at sexology, is a good example because it is easy to follow. I made a comment to the talk page, and WLU reacted by doing the opposite. A link that I thought should be kept, Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology, was removed, making the link I thought should be removed, Sexualmedicine.org, the only non-DMOZ EL. I opened a discussion at EL/N that WLU hijacked, closed, and hid. After asserting that Sexualmedicine.org was "the international page" and "a world-wide agency", WLU checked the EL, and concluded that my original comment was correct. The other external link, the Magnus Hirschfeld Archive for Sexology was previously re-added by another editor and used as a reliable source by WLU. As usual, WLU wasted the time of good Wikipedians fighting for a bad position, that now not even he holds.

A more complicated attack started at homosexuality. As usual, I made a comment on a talk page, and WLU reacted by stating his determination to do the opposite. An author had proposed a paper to two articles, with the primary discussion at homosexuality. WLU wrote "I'll read and integrate it". Please note that again, this was not about the paper, which WLU had not yet read. Homosexuality is a well-watched article, so there wouldn't be an opportunity to single me out there. WLU fought to add a new paragraph dedicated to that author at paraphilia and cite his article in multiple locations in the article. After the edit war, WLU claims to have re-read the article and accepted one of the reservations I raised in my initial comment. Again WLU only succeeded in wasting the time of good Wikipedians.

I and two other editors got involved. KimvdLinde considered the source primary but kept one citation to it to try to make peace. She quickly announced her retirement from Misplaced Pages. The other was Jokestress, also known as Andrea James. WLU reacted by deleting her from one article and adding negative material to her BLP. WLU hadn't edited Andrea James or Blanchard's transsexualism typology before.

Most of his efforts are still harder to follow. An absurd example of WLU's argument-for-arguments-sake is his fighting to cite 47 pages of the DSM, then 5 pages (4RR/28 hours), (and hijacking a 3O), then zero (0) pages,, and then finally one (1) page at the same article. He claims to have read that source seven months into the conflict.

We can set aside the entire debate about whether or how the DSM discusses infantilism. Even if one of the positions WLU fought for is right, the other contradictory positions he fought for were wrong. Had WLU read the source before edit warring, we could have skipped months of fruitless arguing. Fighting for unchecked sources is common for WLU. In a better example, after two thousands words of pointless debate WLU read the text and admitted "Oops". A more humorous example is this edit, where WLU cited a Misplaced Pages printout as an RS without knowing it.

After removing the DSM for lack of specific demographic information on infantilism, WLU argued for replacing it with FB&B, even though it too lacked specific demographic information on infantilism. Initially he argued "they do make a statement explicitly about all paraphilias". Then I pointed out that CB&B list three exceptions on the very next page. WLU waffled to there being three and only three exceptions. Again, arguing seems to be his main goal.

There are not one, but two lengthy discussions indicating the DSM is largely irrelevant to paraphilic infantilism, here and here. But you are correct, when I make a mistake I do admit it, correct it, and do my best to avoid repeating it. I even apologize . WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:37, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

His frequent waffling has even complicated this issue. Those reading WLU's version of the article before Dec 6th would see pretty much the opposite text cited to F&B than they would in WLU's current version. Before Dec 6th, WLU fought to have the article include the text "infantilism is an autoerotic form of paedophilia."(quote is from the last altered section) (The F&B-related text in the pedophilia section was commented out until Dec 6th.) After Dec 6th, he waffled to "infantilism is a sexual attraction to the idea of the self being a child." (that is, NOT a form of pedophilia). . He also now blames the non-politically correct version on me. Here too, we can set aside the discussion of what FB&B actually say. WLU has fought for contradictory positions, so he is wrong either way.

Where will this stop? WLU believes it necessary to drive me off Misplaced Pages. Were any of my editing practices the issue, I would have the option of changing that practice. He doesn't see this as an option.

• "he'll either stop editing and his problems go away, or he'll end up blocked or banned."20 August 2011
• "I think wikipedia would be flat-out best served if he were site-banned."2 March 2012

Towards this goal, he's been maintaining not one but two attack pages against me, started in 23 March 2011 and 15 December 2011‎ .

Of course, given what he thinks of me, he ignores my comments and edits:

• "...I can just delete this without reading it" 25 February 2011
• "I've been ignoring Bittergrey's constant claims of bias and his interpretations. Cuts down on the reading."22 August 2011
• "Oops...I assumed a simple revert" 19 November 2011 -yes, WLU violated AGF even in a posting to wikiquette assistance.

The second example was written to another editor, whom WLU was encouraging to ignore me. A more humorous example of this was written to yet another editor, on 14:37, 4 March 2011. "he lacks experience and in my mind tends to start disputes rather than resolve them.". This was actually between two skirmishes between myself and WLU. The "dispute" WLU was engaged in then was with a Bot. (Had he WP:AGF'd and at least evaluated my edits, he at least would have seen that they weren't my edits, but Yobot's.)

WLU, with his long history of blocks and edit warring, has been chasing me around Misplaced Pages for a year. He reacts to oppose my comments and reverts my edits, while ignoring my points. He also encourages others to do so. He disruptively argues and edit wars at great length without checking sources. If shown wrong, he changes to yet another position and continues the argument or edit war, ensuring that no consensus can be reached. It seems that he and his friends have created or joined every conflict I've had on Misplaced Pages since Feb 2011. BitterGrey (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Question: Is this the right forum?

Given that not even WLU claims that a 3RR violation occurred, making this accusation yet another frivolous attack, should this be relocated to AN/I? His funny timestamps and his linking to the second week of a discussion I started (to hide the fact that he was silent for the first week) are in particularly poor form. At other times in his hounding of me, he's made four reverts in 28 hours (), making this filing WP:kettle at best. This morning, he even made comments about my sexuality, which, given the sources he is fighting to cite, imply a criminal activity. These personal attacks must stop. BitterGrey (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This is the edit war noticeboard, it's review is not restricted to 3RR violations. See the definitions of edit warring and 3RR at the top of the page. Please, by all means - bring up my conduct at AN or ANI if you think it's worth the time. WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 17:21, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll be more explicit: I'd like input from uninvolved editors, preferably admins. Since WLU has repeatedly stated an interest in driving me off Misplaced Pages, I can't accept his advice.BitterGrey (talk) 17:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Gosh, how many times must I say it. Paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles. I don't think paraphilic infantilists are pedophiles. I don't think Bittergrey is a pedophile. I've edited the paraphilic infantilism page to clarify that paraphilic infantilists are not pedophiles , , . I've made this statement several times in a variety of venues , , , . WLU (t) (c) Misplaced Pages's rules:/_complex 18:47, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

66.108.2.128 reported by User:Acps110 (Result: )

Page: High Line (New York City) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.108.2.128 (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
• 5th revert: diff
• 6th revert: diff

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

Comments:
66.108.2.128 seems hell bent on including a POV external link to the High Line article. Thus far has not responded to any messages left for him, but just continues to revert. Acps110 17:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

(And he reverted a 6th time.) Acps110 18:58, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:174.98.141.237 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: )

Page: Bolero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 174.98.141.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
174.98.138.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 19:10, March 31, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 2nd revert: 16:14, April 1, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 3rd revert: 21:29, April 1, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 4th revert: 05:41, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 5th revert: 16:07, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 6th revert: 18:50, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 7th revert: 18:52, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 8th revert: 21:54, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 9th revert: 22:29, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

This person who edits from North Carolina under various IPs including 174.98.141.237 and 174.98.138.223 is a music fan who has very poor English skills and a wish to insert original research about Latin music topics. He was blocked for vandalism by Spencer on March 31. The article Bolero is but one of the targets of this person: he has been edit warring on Salsa romántica, Timba, Cha-cha-cha (music), Guaracha, Pachanga, Dominican salsa, Johnny Pacheco, Mambo (music), Son (music), Son montuno, and Salsa dura. Recently, Drmies protected Salsa music for one month because of this guy. Binksternet (talk) 18:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

• Second that. Refuses to discuss his edits despite multiple warnings in user talk page. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Alexf blocked the IP for 24 hours. Binksternet (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Vikramadityabushahr reported by User:Sitush (Result: )

Page: Virbhadra Singh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vikramadityabushahr (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: - entire talk page consists of warnings

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Virbhadra_Singh#BLP_issues

Comments:

• Update - this edit summary is perhaps significant. I had already raised the issue of weight, WP:BLP etc on the talk page but this contributor simply is not responding ... and now there appears to be a conflict of interest. The article needs to be adjusted, sure, but using consensus and with regard to our "not censored" stance. - Sitush (talk) 23:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuorum reported by Pete (talk) (Result: )

Page: Talk:Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

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

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

1. 23:29, 2 Apr 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485246938 by Ianmacm (talk) grow up!")
2. 23:35, 2 April 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485248144 by Ianmacm (talk) by what authority do you claim to know who this IP actually is?")
3. 23:54 2 April 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485251182 by Skyring (talk) please stop")
4. 23:56, 2 April 2012 (compare) (edit summary: "Undid revision 485251182 by Ianmacm (talk) Ho hum, here we go again")

• Diff of warning: here

Comments:
BLP article has been used to attack subject, who requested deletion. An IP editor, presumably subject, complains that harassment continues through minor edits by two editors previously advised by GK to cool it. Subject of article described as idiot by User:Malleus Fatuorum. Sigh.

—Pete (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

This article has never been used to attack the subject, who has simply objected to the inclusion of his date of birth (now removed, and never added by me) and made vague and unsubstantiated claims about its innacuracy. And since we don't know who the IP is I have called nobody anything. Malleus Fatuorum 00:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The issue here is your behaviour in edit-warring. I note that you added the word "allegedly" on the fourth and fifth reverts, whilst retaining the wording objected to by other editors. --Pete (talk) 02:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

But the issue really ought to be your behaviour in edit warring. "There are none so blind as those who will not see." Malleus Fatuorum 02:17, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I think people can see quite well. And reverting BLP violations is exempt from WP:3RR anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:33, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

There were no BLP violations. Malleus Fatuorum 05:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source for your repeated assertions that Hawkins was 'an idiot'? AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The "reverts" are to restore a comment made by the editor on an article talk page -- as refactoring comments when the poster objects is considered improper, and repeatedly doing so when it is clear the poster objects to refactoring the remarks is improper, the person who is most culpable on that end is Ianmacm -- not Malleus. The proper course if it was seen as a WP:BLP violation would be to report it at BLP/N instead of edit war over what appears to be a fairly mild "claim" on a talk page. Search shows on article talk pages an innumerable usage of "idiot" -- I suggest the word is, in fact, in common usage and is not something which is a BLP violation on an article talk page. I would also note that I !voted "delete" on the article at issue. Collect (talk) 12:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:76.97.19.69 reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: )

Page: Cops (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 76.97.19.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: link permitted

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

Comments:
I'm not reporting somebdoy who has broken the 3rr rule, but somebody who has been edit-warring even when he has been told to not do so. This IP has been blocked three times and, due to the existing evidence is why I'm reporting him/her immediately. User:Qwyrxian warned him about this "game" he's been playing, but as he was unblocked, the edit-war returned. Further information can be found at User talk:76.97.19.69. Tbhotch. Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 05:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Cmach7 reported by User:Agricolae (Result: )

Page: List of French monarchs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Cmach7 (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:

Reverting a consensus of several editors, no edit summary given. Part of a larger pattern of slow edit-warring on this page to insert various parts of this larger reverted edit, in spite of numerous requests in edit summaries not to make these changes without Talk (See page history: ). Same editor similarly edit warring against consensus on other pages (i.e. Henry III of France), but hasn't violated 3RR.

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring