Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:01, 28 July 2013

• 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:122.144.64.116 reported by User:Forward Unto Dawn (Result: 72 hours)

Page

Tubod, Surigao del Norte (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 01:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC) to 01:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. 01:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "/* History of Tubod */"
   2. 01:59, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "/* History of Tubod */"
2. Consecutive edits made from 01:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC) to 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. 01:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "/* History of Tubod */"
   2. 01:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "/* History of Tubod */"
3. Consecutive edits made from 09:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC) to 09:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. 09:40, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "/* History of Tubod */"
   2. 09:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "/* History of Tubod */"
4. Consecutive edits made from 09:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC) to 09:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. 09:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "/* History of Tubod */"
   2. 09:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "/* History of Tubod */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 09:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Disruptive editing on Tubod, Surigao del Norte. (TW)"
2. 09:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Tubod, Surigao del Norte. (TW)"
3. 09:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Final warning notice. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Edit warring by this user (has exceeded three reverts in 24 hr). Continues to insert their own original research into Tubod, Surigao del Norte. The nature of this IP's edits suggest that this is the same person who was blocked a month ago for the same reason. Has been warned repeatedly to stop. I can no longer revert their edits, otherwise I will be in violation of 3RR. --Forward Unto Dawn 10:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Not including last month's warnings, this user has also been warned by Capitalismojo and XLinkBot.--Forward Unto Dawn 14:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours Mark Arsten (talk) 15:23, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Unknown Unknowns reported by User:SchroCat (Result: Warned)

Page: Albert Toft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Unknown Unknowns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Unknown Unknowns has edit warred against two other editors, reverting a total of five times. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a blatant lie - SchroCat is being abusive. I have edited completely in accordance with Misplaced Pages's rules. Please see my edits, my comments and my talk page. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 13:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the lie is, or where I am being abusive: please could you provide some evidence to support both those accusations? I have provided diffs to show your edit warring, the warning on your talk page and the attempt to start a discussion on the talk page. As such I am at a loss to see what is the lie here. - SchroCat (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The five edits were over a three day period, you could hardly describe this as an edit war. You falsely accused me of breaking the 3-Revert rule and you failed to tell me why you suddenly started editing the Albert Toft page (did someone tell you to?). Then when you couldn't find a valid objection to the disambiguation link that I'd included you reported here. What's going on? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You have reverted five times against two different editors: how is that not edit warring? I mentioned on your talk page that you needed to discuss rather than revert (and warned that you were in breach of WP:3RR) and yet you still went ahead with the revert, rather than just discussing. What did you expect? - SchroCat (talk) 14:31, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not in breach of the 3RR and you were one of the 'different editors'. You reverted three of my edits - why? You never edited this page before or even a page in one of its categoreies. What's going on? Unknown Unknowns (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you should check the history: I reverted two of your edits (and never claimed that I wasn't one of the two editors in question). Either way, you have edit warred without bothering to discuss, despite being warned of the consequences. - SchroCat (talk) 15:00, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I included my reasons for the change on the Albert Toft talk page, like you did. If there is an edit war it's because you suddenly started reverting valid changes on a page that you never edited before. Why? Your behaviour verges on trolling. I'm off now, I'll let the Administrators sort this one out. Unknown Unknowns (talk) 15:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Warned There was no technical 3RR violation here, but Unknown Unknowns is advised that continually reverting is disruptive and may lead to blocks in the future. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Dominus Vobisdu reported by lori-m (Result: No violation)

Page: Matzoon (yogurt) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: ‎Dominus Vobisdu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Dominus Vobisdu deletes the information and sources , --Lori-m (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Shookallen88 reported by User:Darkwarriorblake (Result: Blocked)

Page

Fast Five (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Shookallen88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 07:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565824264 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)Not the only article with linking problems."
2. 23:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565750593 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)what's wrong with this?"
3. 11:59, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Undid revision 565717177 by Darkwarriorblake (talk)Nothing wrong with that is only a single liking there's no double"
4. 01:33, 25 July 2013 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Fast Five. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

User was reported previously at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RRArchive217#User:Shookallen88_reported_by_User:Darkwarriorblake_.28Result:_Warned.29 and temporarily blocked. Despite this user has continued behaviour at Fast & Furious 6 and now has begun doing the same thing at Fast Five, refusing to discuss, ignoring anything brought up and repeatedly editing to get his way, has no intention of stopping or acknowledging why he was initially blocked. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

There are more articles with linking issues. You can show me a linking right or wrong reality it's not something you have to use, there can be double linking or linking a name second instants instead of first. User:Shookallen88 July 26. —Preceding undated comment added 22:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours. Just a clarification. Shookallen88 was not blocked based on the previous report. He was warned.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Drmargi reported by User:Kude90 (Result: Warned)

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: This is the second time we've had this argument. Drmargi couldn't properly source her side the first time, and I was unsure of my sources, so I went to the RS noticeboard, where I several users quickly jumped in and said I was right. Drmargi got angry, and left the page alone for a while. She recently came back, got rid of several things in the rticle that had consensus, including what she was warring about just not. WP:CONLIMITED says she doesn't have consensus, but she just won't listen.

Kude90 (talk) 20:30, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Kude has mis-counted the number of reverts, mis-represented the sequence of events, and mis-applied CONLIMITED. Moreover, he is claiming consensus on the article that was never reached, as pointed out to him by another, neutral editor. He is also ignoring current, reliable sources and continues to revert changes by other editors since our interaction based on dated sources, despite a source from the show's writers themselves having confirmed the correct name for the character in question (see link in the article.) Kude is a single, highly uncivil voice clinging to an erroneous name in the face of current sources indicating another name is correct, while defending his position with a series of very aggressive edit summaries and discussion the talk page that indicates a troubling sense of WP:OWN while demonstrating a worrying lack of understanding of policy. --Drmargi (talk) 20:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and not to put to fine a point on it, but I wasn't warned, and he know how because he's received warnings himself. Meanwhile, discussion continues. --Drmargi (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment I am the "neutral editor" who got involved and tried to sort out the mess. While this is not the place for a content dispute here's the nutshell: At one point CBS said the character's name is Tobias and then later a different branch of CBS and a writer said Thomas. I proposed three compromise solutions to deal with the issue. Drmargi agreed with one of them, Kude90 refused (so far) to engage in that particular conversation instead claiming that a consensus had been reached before (not as far as I could tell) and by misapplying CONLIMITED. It would have been better if more editors would have gotten involved but that hasn't happened. In the meantime the compromise solution (which mentions both names with the older one only mentioned in a note) works well and I would think should make most people happy. If Kude90 has any specific complaints against this or the other proposed compromise solutions then they should express that on the talk page at which point we'll take the next step in the resolution process. So yes, there has been edit-warring but a good solution that makes sense has been agreed upon by the only two editors who have attempted to participate constructively in the discussion. If Kude90 and Drmargi need a time-out in order to cool-off then so be it, but the current state of the article is close to how it should be. SQGibbon (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

my last edit was my attempt at a compromise. I removed the first name altogether. Drmagri still removed it, against the consensus. No more argument. The first name really isn't that important anyway. Drmargi still reverted mine and added her own back in. She deleted sources in a typical america centric way because they were "foreign," and used her own, some of which are, according to wikipedia, not to be used ever. She ignored consensus several times in fact.Kude90 (talk) 21:58, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Kude, we've pointed out to you a number of times that you did not have consensus as you've unilaterally tried to claim, and making yet another change before engaging in any sort of discussion of it simply inflamed the situation, as do your continuously uncivil edit summaries. Moreover, Twitter sites from TV shows are now accepted as reliable sources, and you've mis-applied the policy regarding press releases as primary sources; we can use them, but they have to be attributed correctly. SQGibbons has pointed out more than once that there is no policy to support your claims. Additionally, there is no policy that states that they are "not to be used ever"; in fact they are routinely used on TV articles. The network is the seminal source for information about a TV show, and it updated its media site in the last 48 hours, with the character's name listed as Thomas on its main page, on the actor's bio in addition to roughly 20 press releases, all more current than the sources you provided. Meanwhile, you've never made an attempt to offer a current source to counter the sources I've presented. All this discussion belongs on the talk page, where we've gone around and around on this before. --Drmargi (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. User:Kude90 and User:Drmargi are warned that if they continue to battle over the character's name on the article, they risk being blocked without notice. I don't care who's right. I don't care about press releases vs. tweets vs. official websites. I don't care about a discussion at RSN from apparerently last April (I assumed it was more recent - whatever happened to diffs?). Oh, and the two of you should listen to User:SQGibbon. They seem to be a voice of reason.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

If you had cared enough to read the discussion, you'd see SQGibbons and I have discussed calmly and collaboratively, and are in agreement. It's Kude ignoring what SQ has to say and brushing all contrary views aside, not me. --Drmargi (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jdremix540 reported by User:Suzuku (Result: Stale)

Page: The Wolverine (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jdremix540 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: and continuously made this same revision more than 5 times despite being to ld to take his concerns to the talk page and wait for a consensus.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• • As you can see user repeatedly made the same revision over and over despite being told by two users (myself and another) to go to the talk page to voice his concerns and wait for a consensus. Instead of engaging in conversation, he chose this route and simply makes the same statement over and over no matter how many times myself or another presents logic against his claims. Keep in mind we had already had a debate about which poster to use in the article weeks before and came to the general consensus that the artistic poster should be used for several reasons.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

*Unfortunately that is as far as the conversation with him went for me because he didn't bother to respond after that, until I told him I was reporting him.

• Stale. Looks like they stoppped editing. If it recurs, you can add to this report.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:17, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Jujhar.pannu reported by User:Sikh-history (Result: No action)

Page

Damdami Taksal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jujhar.pannu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. Consecutive edits made from 17:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC) to 18:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
   1. 17:35, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "Reverted to revision 565675199 by Jujhar.pannu: Removal of details. (TW)"
   2. 17:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Bhindran Taksal */ Added citation to prove he was refereed to as Baba Thakur Singh"
   3. 18:10, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "/* History */"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 00:44, 27 July 2013 (UTC) "honest or earnest?"
2. 01:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Damdami Taksal. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 12:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC) "/* Re: WP:Weasel */ new section"
2. 00:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC) "it doesn't matter what I think"
3. 01:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC) "Edit Warring"

• Note. With one exception, the editors I see warring are the two of you, and it's a very slow dance (since about July 14). No one comes close to breaching WP:3RR. You're going to have to get other editors involved if you want to resolve the disputes.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Dusti reported by User:99.251.120.150 (Result: IP blocked)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Timothy Sheridan
User being reported:User:Dusti

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 1st revert Note the lie in the history comments used as a common technique to exaggerate the claim
2. 1st replacement
3. Warning on user's talk page. I asked nicely.
4. 2nd revert
5. 2nd replacement
6. 3rd revert

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

I was blocked without any prior discussion, explanation or warning by User:NuclearWarfare and labeled as a troll for my opinion. This is the usual action in a dispute between an IP and a anonymous user hiding their IP address and it's exposure.

99.251.120.150 (talk) 02:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it takes much of an explanation to show the IP was trolling AN/I and was being reverted until User:NuclearWarfare was able to come along and block. Dusti 03:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP as it's still being used by a blocked editor to disrupt and troll.--Jezebel'sPonyo 16:07, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Saladin1987 reported by User:Fareed30 (Result: )

Page: Prithviraj Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Saladin1987 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• Saladin1987: thats it first answer my questions .i wil kepp reverting it ...
• Saladin1987: this time i will change it to peshawari hindko if u revert it to pashtun . u r so ignorant , pathan is the word that is known all over the world not pashtun . he is indian in india people dont know what pashtun is

Nearly all of this extreme POV pusher's edits are vandalism-related, removing important and well-sourced content from famous Bollywood actors. He is particularly erasing Pashtun/Afghan references from their pages so that not even a trace of that is left in them. I warned her/him and advised her that this is forgery and that he/she should stop but I don't think he will listen. What's strange is that she's always active on Misplaced Pages but not editing like us normal editors.--Fareed30 (talk) 03:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your own sources are flawed because you are writing those things from your sources which are not even there meaning you are just writing the info that you want to publish. I would request the admin to prove from his sources that he is right and prove from my sources that i am wrong. i have given authentic sources but he has given the sources in which there is alot of false information. in most cases he is using britannica encyclopedia as a source. i have asked him questions on talk page but he hasnt replied to them. Whats the point of talk if he doesnt wana talk.Saladin1987 04:03, 27 July 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saladin1987 (talk • contribs)

• You're disruptive; you're willfully and deliberatly falsifying people's ethnicity, with intention to mislead readers; you're removing well-sourced relevant information from pages which is against Misplaced Pages's rules; you're avoiding discussion in the talk pages of the articles; you're pushing your personal strange point of view which goes against all the reliable sources; you're attacking other editors based on their race or nationality; you're edit-warring for fun and violating other rules. I think that if you get blocked then you'll stop doing these things.--Fareed30 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• All the reliable sources, including his own children , revealed that Prithviraj Kapoor was a Pathan/Pashtun and spoke Pashto. See Talk:Prithviraj Kapoor#Pathan/Pashtun ethnicity of Prithviraj Kapoor. User:Saladin1987, however, disagrees and keeps replacing Pathan with Punjabi and in the process he deletes all sources that support Pathan. He does not believe that Prithviraj was Pathan, he rather wants to force readers to believe that Prithviraj was Punjabi by ethnicity and cites the following 3 web links to support his theory. 1 2 3. The number 1 is a mirror site (www.iloveindia.com) and it is basically an older version of Prithviraj Kapoor's Misplaced Pages article. That is clearly not a reliable source. Number 2 and 3 are short gossip stories about Kareena Kapoor Khan and her sister Karizma Kapoor in which each of them mentioned "I am a Punjabi". What do these girls have to do with Prithviraj's ethnicity? Plus, "I'm a Punjabi" is not a fact but just an expression, like "I'm king of the world".--Fareed30 (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

User:CJK reported by User:The Four Deuces (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to: 13:23, 21 July 2013

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. 20:08, 24 July 2013 (re-adds POV tag)
2. 18:45, 25 July 2013 (Adds "dubious" tags)
3. 13:01, 26 July 2013 (Re-adds POV & "dubious" tags)
4. 23:14, 26 July 2013 (Adds "failed verification" tags)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: 00:53, 21 July 2013

05:58, 26 July 2013

Comments:

CJK was blocked 18:05 21 July and 19:06, 23 July 2013 for edit-warring on this article. His tagging has been reversed by myself, Truthwillneverdie, and Thucydides411, and no editors have shown support for keeping them. TFD (talk) 04:13, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There is a dispute currently under discussion in the article talk page in question, so tagging is appropriate. The last "revert" was actually explicitly recommended by TFD despite his cynical use of it (see here ).

CJK (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

In your reply to me you do not explain why you think these sentences "fail verification", but instead continue your discussion of why you think the article is biased. You do not explain how what is written in the article differs from what is in the source. So whether you add back your original edits, or put in "POV", "dubious" or "failed verification" tags, you are just continuing the same thing. No other editors accept the changes you wish to make. TFD (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

It was explained here and you never responded. I don't see how you missed it.

CJK (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your link is to a discussion thread set up by another editor, Hohum, who removed your cleanup tag and moved your comments to the talk page 18:12 July 26 2013. After that you replaced tags on the article page three more times. TFD (talk) 22:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:Capitals00 (Result: Capitals00 blocked for one week)

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

Previous version reverted to: and several other versions shown below.

Diffs of the user's reverts:

• 1st - Removed the sourced material without even reading it.
• 2nd - Removed the sourced material under 2 minutes this time.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

• I heavily doubt that if this user has to do anything with this page, this user is concerned about editing my talk page with useless warnings, but won't discuss any of the changes made by him/her. As you can see, in the talks of this page, this user is no where backing up there points but always ready to revert the edits without giving any explanation in the edit summary either. Capitals00 (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
  • And in return claims that information is "unsourced" "personal analysis", where in actual, this complicated matter has been explained by the personality himself in his autobiography.Capitals00 (talk) 05:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• • User is attempting to remove exhaustively sourced information and insert unsourced information based on his own personal analysis, which I've explained to him on the talk page; disregard frivolous complaint. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: User:Capitals00 has just been blocked for one week for "renewed disruptive editing on religion topics, this time on Jawaharlal Nehru". Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 07:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• I've had a similar experience with Roscelese. I don't know the specifics of this particular incident, but rather than rehash what I've already written my thoughts on her editorial behavior can be viewed on the ANI noticeboard:

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=44Lordvolton (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Please sign your posts; and please stop forum shopping in this egregious way. Mathsci (talk) 08:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you prefer I cut and paste several pages of material here? You're the one who brought his system ban to my attention as evidence of his lack of credibility, which I find problematic. Simply because a user is banned does not mean they were not mistreated and their complaints should be ignored. As I stated on the ANI noticeboard, separate from the legitimacy of a revert is the tone and manner in which they're carried out. When there is no discourse and a user makes an effort to improve the article they can feel offended when those efforts are reverted without a dialogue. It's more offensive when the revert is wholly unjustified -- I know from personal experience some of Roscelese's edits fall within this category. Again, I don't feel the need to rehash it a second time here when most of my thoughts have already been outlined.

BTW, this is the forum for complaints. I'm sharing thoughts with respect to my experiences with Roscelese. Although Capital00 has been banned he was not alone. You have used his banishment as evidence against him in another forum where he was not there to defend himself. And that's also problematic.Lordvolton (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Capitals00 has been blocked (not banned) for disruptive editing of the article on Nehru. As far as pro-life issues are concerned, WP:discretionary sanctions are in force for WP:ARBAB. Mathsci (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User:Fareed30 reported by User:Saladin1987 (Result: )

Page: Prithviraj Kapoor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Fareed30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Dougweller#.7B.7BUser.7CSaladin1987.7D.7D:

Saladin1987 04:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I reverted that page 2 times, and my reason for both of those times was reverting obvious vandalism which was made by User:Saladin1987 (the reporter of this incident). The first was to revert a disruptive banned editor (User:PISCOSOUR786).--Fareed30 (talk) 19:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Repeated erasure of pertinent page content by 2 specific editors. Page: Multi-factor authentication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

== User:MrOllie reported by User:MesaBoy77 (Result: ) ==
== User:ViperSnake151 reported by User:MesaBoy77 (Result: ) ==

Page: Multi-factor authentication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: User:MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: User:ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs of the user's reverts: Reverts by User: MrOllie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=564347042
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=543848792
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=542114853

Reverts by User: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log):

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=566028303
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=565968206
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Multi-factor_authentication&diff=566103178&oldid=471411498

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): # https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AViperSnake151&diff=566070924&oldid=566037743

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User: ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log): # https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AViperSnake151&diff=566070924&oldid=566037743

Comments:
The page Page: Multi-factor authentication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) contains information related to various forms of multifactor authentication (MFA). There are numerous forms of MFA, including hardware tokens, software tokens, virtual tokens, and so on. For some reason, MrOllie and Vipersnake151 have both repeatedly objected to the inclusion of information related to one form of MFA called "virtual tokens". They claim that the term "virtual token" refers to some specific vendor or product, that the section on virtual token is not properly sourced, or that the sources are not relevant. I have reviewed the section in question. It does not refer to any specific product nor vendor, it is properly sourced, and the sources are relevant.

Virtual token does not refer to any specific vendor, any more than "software token" or "hardware token" refers to any specific vendor. These are "TYPES" of MFA, not products or vendors. There are numerous companies offering "virtual token" forms of MFA, just as there are numerous companies offering "software token" and "hardware token" forms of MFA. The fact that certain vendors may refer to their products as "software tokens", "hardware tokens", or "virtual tokens", or even trademark similar phrases should not be a reason to arbitrarily erase an entire class of authentication technology from discussion on this page. I have searched and discovered numerous companies now referring to their products as "virtual" tokens, including MobilePass, DNABolt, RSA, Sestus, Safenet, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Charismathics, eTrade, IBM, etc. The list goes on and on.

I have attempted to query both editors regarding their repeated censorship of this information on their personal talk pages, but they refuse to respond. They have simply erased the section, offering as their excuse their ill-informed and inaccurate belief that the section promotes some specific vendor's product, or is not properly sourced. This issue has been discussed for several years by other editors who have reached a consensus that information related to "virtual tokens" belong on this page, just as information related to "software tokens" and "hardware tokens" belong on this page. The section in question does not name nor promote any specific company nor any specific product and is properly sourced.

The page Multi-factor authentication (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is currently "semi-protected so that only autoconfirmed users can edit it." Please remove this semi-protection and restore the pertinent section. If MrOllie or Vipersnake151 object to any content on this page, they should discuss the matter with other editors on their talk pages, rather than repeatedly erasing entire sections. Thank you. MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

The article concerned is in fact Multifactor authentication (note capitalisation). See Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Situation on Multi-factor authentication for clarification on this dispute. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Andy, I just noticed that and have corrected the page name accordingly. MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Additional note Andy: I reverted the content that had been removed by the above ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editor so the content-in-question can be more easily viewed in the context of the page. Note: I previously queried the ViperSnake151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) editor on their Talk page to explain their objections to this content, but they simply erased by query from their Talk page. See: See: # http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk%3AViperSnake151&diff=566108814&oldid=566037281

MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely unnecessary to revert the content - it is readily accessible in the article history. I would strongly advise you to self-revert and remove it again, as otherwise you may yourself be accused of edit warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You're right Andy. I self-reverted, pending a resolution on this topic. MesaBoy77 (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Why you are using the term "censorship" to refer to this is completely bonkers. Additionally, you claimed I erased your query; I only erased a query from an IP editor. If this is the case, I am now going to presume you are connected to the IP editor who has also been involved in this dispute. I work under the assumption that there is a COI going on primarily because of this (and this related edit by an unrelated user on Security token, who described it as a "vendor's trademarked minor variation") that actually did read like advertising. I need reliable sources that indicate your assertion that "virtual token" is now a generic term and not just a Sestus productViperSnake151  Talk  06:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Censorship: Definition = "to delete (a word or passage of text) in one's capacity as a censor". As an editor, you have the ability to remove content from a page, which is the dictionary definition of "censoring". Don't take offense to the word "censor". As editors, we are all censors.

Regarding your accusation and apparent objection: I am the original editor that REMOVED all vendor references from the section on "virtual" forms of MFA. A simple review of history will show that. So why do you keep alleging I am affiliated with some specific company, and why do you keep erasing an entire class of MFA from this page when numerous companies now refer to various forms of "virtual" MFA? Is it that you want additional citations added? I tried to include only citations of an academic nature rather than those offered by the various commercial vendors, but I can certainly add those if you prefer. In short, what is your objection? A simple review of the term on Google.com shows a number of companies using the term "virtual" in reference to MFA, including MobilePass, DNABolt, RSA, Sestus, Safenet, Google, Cisco, Microsoft, Charismathics, eTrade, IBM, etc. The list goes on and on. MesaBoy77 (talk) 06:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Colbert slobbers on Steve King, wiki editors slimed

User:MilesMoney reported by User:TomPointTwo (Result: )

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

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Discussion of stupidity starts here: Talk:Steve_King#Tag-team_edit_warring_by_Arzel_and_Thargor_Orlando

Comments:
Single editor is intent on adding content contrary to RS and BLP. Unwilling to bend to consensus and in violation of 3RR. Issue was erroneously taken to a page protection request instead of here.TomPointTwo (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Please note

• MilesMoney, who is a newbie, once warned by me on the talkpage of Steve King has stopped edit-warring. The reporter also reached 3RR. Δρ.Κ.  08:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The first part is unsubstantiated. The second is demonstrably untrue. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Here are your 3RR: , , . Δρ.Κ.  08:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Uh oh, super awkward. I think you need to read 3RR again. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Perhaps an admin can advise you better. I know I've got nothing to read in that regard. Δρ.Κ.  08:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
    • My warning given at :26 past the hour: , Miles's last revert was :21 past the hour: . TomPointTwo also baited the other editor in his edit summaries: . Δρ.Κ.  08:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
      • Again, reread 3RR, I'm not in violation of it. As for baiting, it was much more a general mocking of his presumptuousness. Rude but not leading. WP:DICK has long been consigned to the nether regions of wiki-land, a move I'm rather torn over. TomPointTwo (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
        • Please reread my comments to you and don't put words in my mouth. I never said that you went over 3RR. I said you are at 3RR. But as you know you can still be blocked even if you don't vilate 3RR. That's all. Δρ.Κ.  09:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring