Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:22, 28 July 2010

• 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:Dougweller reported by User:Architecture and Interior Design (Result: see note)

• Page: Complementary color (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User being reported: Dougweller (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE INFORMATION YOU ARE ASKING FOR

Previous version reverted to: - DON'T KNOW HOW TO PROVIDE THE PREVIOUS VERSION

1. (cur | prev) 21:00, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Changed protection level of Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)) (expires 21:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC))))
2. (cur | prev) 20:59, 18 July 2010 Dougweller (talk | contribs) m (5,108 bytes) (Protected Complementary color: Edit warring / Content dispute ( (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)) (expires 20:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC))))
3. (cur | prev) 20:37, 18 July 2010 Arakunem (talk | contribs) (5,108 bytes) (Undid revision. You MUST discuss this on the talk page. See the New Messages left on your own talk page.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT - YOUR SYSTEM ISN'T VERY USER FRIENDLY

Comments:

So as you are aware there are a few users including users that you have bestowed "Administrative" priviledges to who for some reason insist on providing incorrect information to the world on this subject. They have blocked and locked down the page of course with their erroneous information in place. At the same time these "lovely people" (I use that term loosely) have the audacity to accuse ME of being the vandal and of edit warring. Certainly there is something you can do to remove these people from Misplaced Pages and not allow them to carry on their abusive behavior. Other vandals included in this consipiracy are as follows: Taroaldo, Arakunem, Administrator Bart133 and Administrator DougWeller.

• This: User talk:Architecture and Interior Design is your user talk page where people leave you messages. Those messages include links as to why your edits kept getting reverted, and links to where to go to discuss them. Please also click Help:Contents/Getting_started which will introduce you to the Misplaced Pages user interface if you are not sure how or where to do something. Thanks! Arakunem 22:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• • Please check out the link above as Arakunem suggested. User talk:Architecture and Interior Design is the page you need to be commenting on, not here. Editors will try and help you understand WIkipedia policy there. Dayewalker (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank for you help but I think I now understand the policy here just fine. If you are one of the "in-crowd" when you get your little hall Monitor/Administration designation you get to be a big ole, nasty, rude bully without any consequences. The novice user is SCREWED! I am, however, open to accepting apologies. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the drama above, I think the only thing you should be open to at this moment is a ban for disruption. Sorry to put it so bluntly. --Ragib (talk) 22:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ragib's comment is an excellent example of the "pack mentality" that I've had to deal with in relation to this issue. People like Ragib who aren't even part of the conversation or effected by the issue jump in with rude inflammatory remarks trying to make the issue worse than it already is. This is actually in violation of Wikipedias policies referenced in the section "Please do not bite the newcomers." These people don't just bite. They tear at the jugular. Someone like Ragib should be blocked if not permanently banned from Misplaced Pages. comment added by Architecture and Interior Design

• Note — The reporter, Architecture and Interior Design (talk · contribs), was blocked by Toddst1 (talk · contribs). However, another admin, Dougweller (talk · contribs), protected Complementary color (the article in question), and later, the blocked user was unblocked. As an uninvolved admin, I would have only blocked Architecture and Interior Design (talk · contribs) and left the article unprotected had Architecture and Interior Design (talk · contribs) been properly warned of the 3RR (due to multiple editors reverting the user's edits). Otherwise, it looks like this is just a new user getting frustrated. :\ --slakr 07:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify, I'm also uninvolved with both article (despite claims above, I've never edited it) and editors, I simply found A&ID's case here and acted. A&ID hadn't been warned and I preferred to stop the edit warring without blocking a new user in any case. I thought a 24 hour block would give time to stop the edit warring and help the new user. Dougweller (talk) 07:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Now that this has been reviewed and ruled on can it be removed from this page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Architecture and Interior Design (talk • contribs) 15:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

In due time it will be archived and become part of the historical record of this page. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:67.237.113.168 reported by User:Arthur Rubin (Result: Silly )

Page: Talk:Caesarion (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 67.237.113.168 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All edits consist of changing the section heading from "Son of (a) god", which I originally wrote, to "Son of God". Even if the first one was not a revert, successive ones are. (Some earlier reverts were to "Son of G-d".)

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

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

1. 00:19, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
2. 02:51, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
3. 10:24, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
4. 11:02, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
5. 18:43, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
6. 19:11, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
7. 19:47, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
8. 20:05, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
9. 20:10, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
10. 20:57, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")
11. 21:26, 24 July 2010 (compare) (edit summary: "/* Son of (a) god */")

• Diff of warning: 12:30, 24 July 2010

Afraid not. I believe the editor to be the topic-banned WillBildUnion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (see also WP:Sockpuppet investigations/WillBildUnion), so there's little point.

—— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:LAME. IP blocked, not really edit warring, more stupidity. Tiptoety 22:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Maybe it is what you mean, but it looks as if you're calling AR silly, and I don't think that is what you intended. Could it be changed please? Verbal chat 08:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• Tide rolls's block of the IP for disruptive editing looks good. Arthur did not go past 3RR. The 'silly' probably means that the dispute should have been presented sooner for admin attention. See the topic ban of WillBildUnion which includes this article. (The ban was enacted at ANI on 3 July 2010). Though checkuser did not confirm this IP to be a sock of WillBildUnion, the dispute here is an instance of WBU's original research, which he is willing to edit war on. if this problem continues in the future, I suggest a one-month semiprotection of the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:31, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't believe this, I just responded to the sockpuppet thing, but really so you "administrators" recognized that I was not his sockpuppet and continued anyway? And now you are editing me out because of wildbillunion's research? I did my research myself (and there was an old post with my ip not bills) and I have countless books,papers,notebooks,and notepages I have accumulated on the subject. So it is settled you are censoring ideas. If a person posts in support of Caesar(ion) Christ he is a sockpuppet and banned from posting in the Discussion section of the Caesarion article. This is a double edged sword for me, I hate that I had to go through this, I am glad to know someone is interested in similar research! Is wildbill one of the Caesar=Buddah people? I don't agree with that conclusion but I am also weak on Indian history and I try not to "close my ears to truth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.237.113.168 (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:70.139.234.122 reported by User:Mann_jess (Result: IP warned)

Page: List of psychic abilities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 70.139.234.122 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 20:40, 21 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* T */")
2. 14:13, 23 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* T */")
3. 01:19, 24 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* T */")
4. 17:32, 25 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* T */")
5. 08:27, 26 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* T */")

• 3rr warning: here

—

_talk
edits

13:42, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Warned SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Diven83 reported by Fut.Perf. (Result: 48h)

Page: Macedonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Economy of the European Union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Diven83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: ,

Edit-warring over "Macedonia" naming, breaching Arbcom-imposed 1-revert restriction

on Economy of the European Union

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

on Macedonia

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

Warnings given: , Note that the reverts back to the consensus version are exempted from the 1RR per the Arbcom ruling.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Update: user has continued reverting against multiple other users, currently at 5R at Macedonia. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 48 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Verbal reported by User:slatersteven (Result: Protected)

Page: English Defence League (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Verbal (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:

The use has claimed he has not breached 3RR ] and has said he is not interested (I assume to my sugestion we let community decide ] He is also aware of the 3RR rule as he has warned me that I might break it ] therefore it seems that he beeives its a rule for others, but not himslef, to obey.Slatersteven (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• The first edit is not a revert, I added two wholly original sources that were not yet included and further sourced the content. The second and third edits were reverts of the removal of well sourced content and valid RS references. The fourth edit was not a revert as I made an entirely new compromise consisting of both sourced descriptions of the group. There were therefore two reverts, and will not make any further reverts to the page. However, I do not object to the page being locked at the current version to stop well sourced material being removed. This is a content dispute and should be addressed in the usual way. Verbal chat
  • To clarify my "not interested" remark, it is SS I'm not interested in. Verbal chat 16:21, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I may have mis-understoof the 3RR rule but I was under the impresion it meant any edit that undid another edds work http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=English_Defence_League&diff=next&oldid=375529577]] is the page before the first eddit, Verbal clearly undoes my edit. thelast edit partly restores the page to a version verbal prefers, thus is a partial revert, it restore material my self (and others) deleted.Slatersteven (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: We could do with the reviewing admin having a look at the talk page activity around the above referenced reverts. Some general advice would be appreciated. If the page is to be locked then it should be at the last consensus version. --Snowded 16:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Fair enough, but that would be the version before this controversy started, and would have to be the "single-issue political organisation" version. Verbal chat 16:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

  Please do not abuse the rarely used revert during protection. It's only protected for three days; surely you can live with whatever version is there for that short time. -- tariqabjotu 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The more reliable reference says "quasi-political", which seems to cover all the angles. AJRG (talk) 17:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 19:59, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protected Protected instead. Verbal still appears to have violated the three-revert rule, but there is a lot of edit-warring on the article, and it is improper to block someone and protect the relevant article. -- tariqabjotu 20:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Based on the discussions on both Verbal and slatersteven's pages, there's significant question as to whether or not this actually was a 3RR or even an EW situation. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 20:10, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In what sense? Verbal clearly reverted four times, although the fourth revert is not the one mentioned in this report. -- tariqabjotu 20:14, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done no such thing, and Tariqabjotu did the right thing by changing his mind. Verbal chat 20:30, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh I see, he's attempting to make a WP:POINT. This is very poor behaviour from an admin. Verbal chat 20:32, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I would ask you to stop beating a dead horse, but I don't think there's even a dead horse to beat. I haven't the slightest idea what your issue with me is, and similarly I don't have any issue with you. -- tariqabjotu 20:37, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Freakshownerd reported by User:Keepcalmandcarryon (Result: No violation)

Page: Phillip E. Johnson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Freakshownerd (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: (minor, but occurred following the 3RR warning linked below)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:Please also note that the user responded to my 3RR warning an inappropriate accusation of three reverts on my talkpage.

Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No violation Freekshownerd's reverts are exempt from the three-revert rule, in accordance with the biographies of living persons policy. I agree that the material he is reverting is very controversial to the point that it sounds like editorializing. Please discuss on the talk page the information repeatedly being added. -- tariqabjotu 20:23, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

It's controversial to note, with multiple sources, that AIDS denialism and creationism are out of the mainstream? Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

No; that's not the problem. The primary concern appears to be that Mr. Johnson may not actually deny that HIV causes AIDS, but that he feels further research should be done to investigate the issue. From what I can tell, that seems to be what the sources actually say. Worse, you're synthesizing sources -- sources that talk about the general idea of HIV denialism -- to heavily imply that Mr. Johnson is a psuedoscientist. I see that the claim has been in the article for a long time, but it's persistence in the article doesn't make it right. The issue is of great enough concern that I believe it should be hashed out on the talk page. -- tariqabjotu 23:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated in my comment on your talk page, I didn't write this article; I was merely trying to restore a consensus version. There are three separate secondary sources in the article stating that Johnson promotes HIV/AIDS denialism. That's not simply my opinion, and it's not my synthesis of the sources. Also, I (the previous authors of the article, actually) do not imply that Johnson is a pseudoscientist (he's actually not a scientist at all); they state that his opinions on AIDS and creation are considered pseudoscience, as they most verifiably are. Per WP:FRINGE, this statement must be made; it is done concisely and with references. As for the talk page, I have attempted to hash out the issue there, only to be subject to incivility. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ecko1o1 reported by User:Thegreyanomaly (Result: 48h)

Page: Asian American (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ecko1o1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (the user claims they came into agreement with Elockid, but looking at both of their contrib records this is not demonstrable, Elockid actually reverted an identical edit a few minutes earlier)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
This user is bent on imprinting their POV on to this page, and they have made that declaration (see ). There is no consensus over what Ecko1o1 is trying to do. I have even talked to an admin Elockid on the matter, and he agrees what he is putting on this page is wrong. It is also to note that the type of information Ecko1o1 is trying to put onto the page is already found in the terminology section and has no need to be in the lead. After pressing 'Save page', I will be reverting his fourth revert and then staying away from Asian American until this 3RR violation report is processed

Also it should be noted that this user has made multiple racist personal attacks against me (see and ). Please take those incidents into account when looking at this case. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Blocked 48 hours for edit warring and personal attacks. I hope this kind of thing does not continue. EdJohnston (talk) 04:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jevansen reported by User:BrianBeahr (Result:No violation )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: St Kilda Football Club (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jevansen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

St Kilda Football Club,

Previous version reverted to:

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

The person keeps reverting the opening paragraph to a lesser detailed - less factual and biased view that is cleary biased and not a balanced point of view.

Warned the user before - be on its talk page.

Rephrasing for nothing to get edit numbers up a really bad issue on here. How many people live to edit others added info for edit numbers?

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

I find it curious that User:BrianBeahr, who is an indefinitely blocked editor, is making a report on here. Of course he usually makes his regular - and always spurious - reports using his IP address. The main problem is that this user believes he has some kind of ownership of the article. The second problem is that he contantly adds far too much detailed and repetitive information in an often poorly written manner with all sorts of grammar, punctuation, spelling and MOS problems which need constant correction by myself and others. He also vandalises other editors' user pages with fake warning and block notices. It should therefore be clearly obvious who the real problem editor is. His misuse of this noticeboard is just another example of his frequent bullying tactics. Afterwriting (talk) 08:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - This report is not formed correctly: no evidence of 3RR violation as it is. Should be filed properly or closed... Doc9871 (talk) 08:44, 27 July 2010 (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. Two of the diffs presented are ten days old. Courcelles (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Note - The filer of this report was subsequently blocked for 3 months as a sockpuppet of User:BrianBeahr. Doc9871 (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ariana310 reported by User:119.73.1.34 (Result: )

Page: Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ariana310 (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Hi, I made a small change in Afghanistan#Foreign relations and military and provided reliable source as well as explained my reasons at Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign_relations_and_military then Ariana310 (talk · contribs) appeared and started replying in a rude tone, deleting my sourced edits and calling me a pro-Pakistani POV pusher everywhere. Ariana310 violated 3rr after I warned her and refuse to stop deleting sourced content.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 08:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

119.73.1.34 has already made the same complaint in Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Trouble_with_user_Ariana301. I am copying my response:

It's not only me who finds 119.73.1.34's edits as POV and confusion, but other users too agree with me on the same point. Here, here, and here, reverts by two different users User:Begoon and User:John.

119.73.1.34 is overly-emphasizing on Afghanistan-Pakistan relations, while skipping and ignoring more important and healthier relations with other countries. He/She is trying to show off the Afghan-Pak relations to be friendly and without any tension, and is relying purely on one-sided and unreliable sources. A wikipedia article should have a balanced approach; we cannot focus solely on a single country.

I have added reliable sources for the reverts I made and for which there weren't any prior references: in here and here. The rest of my edits were removal of pure POV, for example in here.

I would also ask 119.73.1.34 to show exactly where have I made personal attacks on him/her in Talk:Afghanistan#Foreign_relations_and_military. Ariana (talk) 09:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310, the section is fine the way I edited the Afghan-Pak relations and you may add as much as you want about the relations of other countries. Afghanistan's relations are more with Pakistan than any other country so that's why it is the way it is in the section. Afghan President often says that Afghanistan and Pakistan are inseparable, and he speaks for the nation. Relations between two are not determined by others, they are determined by what the government of these 2 nations state on their official websites. I don't need to further explain all this you can do your own searches, as a matter of fact that is what Afghan government say and you delete their website. That is Afghanistan's official foreign ministry's website you keep deleting. The ruling people of Afghanistan are Pakhtuns and they view Pakistan as their second country because 28 million Pakhtuns make up Pakistan. The capital of Pakistan sits inside Pakhtun territory even thought it is not considered part of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa or Punjab. It at least tells you that Islamabad, the cultural capital of Pakistan, has heavy Pakhtun influence.--119.73.1.34 (talk) 10:02, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I am afraid most of the above is your personal POV. Of course, both governments put friendly texts on their website, but what is important is what the media says. And I provided a reliable scholarly reference on the issue of the long-lasting tension between Afghanistan & Pakistan from the Journal of International Affairs of the Columbia University (here where is says: "Since 1947, serious differences and tensions have existed between the two respective governments at various phases of Pakistan-Afghanistan relations."), but you removed the whole sentence along with its reference: Here. Ariana (talk) 10:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment - "Do not continue a dispute on this page." The last two posts especially are related to content, which should be discussed at the appropriate talk pages. Was 3RR violated here by either editor? That question is why you two are at this board. Be patient and let it be processed; and "talk it out" elsewhere, please... Doc9871 (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Endorse the above comment - this content dispute has been spread across ANI, here, my talk page (a bit), and the article talk page. Please consider WP:3O or WP:DR if you really, really can't just work it out on the article talk page. Recommend a bit of calm, a lot of respect for others' points of view, closing this and pursuing better avenues to resolve the dispute.  Begoon 11:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment: I closed the ANI thread. It's clearly a content dispute, and any administrative action would be more appropriately considered here. I endorse the above comments by Doc9871 and Begoon. In particular WP:3O appears to be an excellent suggestion. TFOWR 12:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I filed this report because Ariana310 violated 3rr. Let's just focus on that please.119.73.8.27 (talk) 23:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Darth007 reported by User:SoWhy (Result:Warned, and will monitor )

Page: HTC Desire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darth007 (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:

Note: User has indicated that they are well aware of WP:EW.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: On user's talk page, by multiple users, see User_talk:Darth007#HTC_Desire

Comments:

As an involved user, I cannot sanction this user myself but their tiresome reverts to a copyrighted image violating WP:NFCC#1 have to stop one way or another. A block might not be necessary at this stage but review by an uninvolved administrator, maybe with an "official" warning, should be helpful in this situation. Regards SoWhy 10:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Warned Hasn't reverted four times within a 24-hour period, but formal, template warning left as an uninvolved administrator. Courcelles (talk) 11:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:SwordBrethren reported by WuhWuzDat (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Elizabeth I of England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

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

1. 22:48, 22 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Religion */ About the increased severity of persecution of Catholics")

1. 22:37, 26 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")
2. 00:48, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")
3. 17:45, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */ Adding how almost 200 Catholics were executed for their faith during the reign of Elizabeth I")
4. 17:51, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "/* Church settlement */")

• Diff of warning: here
• Diff of previous warning here

—WuhWuzDat 17:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbz1 reported by User:Binksternet (Result: Mb: 48h; Bi: 24h)

Page: Art student scam (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mbz1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 16:58, July 26, 2010
• 2nd revert: 17:13, July 26, 2010
• 3rd revert: 11:43, July 27, 2010
• 4th revert: 12:07, July 27, 2010

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

At Talk:Art student scam#Binksternet's version of the article, and below that, I state that I came to the article from a post at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, where I had seen a question about a magazine article written by Christopher Ketcham. I looked him up and determined that Ketcham is quite notable, having published in a wide swath of mainstream magazines. Another editor there thought Ketcham deserved his own Misplaced Pages biography—he was that accomplished. I went to the Art student scam article and brought the Ketcham piece into the text, adjusting what was already written to include his conclusions.

This is where User:Mbz1 began the string of four total reversions, each time taking out the Ketcham piece. I started a talk page discussion but Mbz1 did not take part in it. Instead, Mbz1 began a poll asking other editors whether the article should return to the condition it was in before I arrived. Binksternet (talk) 20:14, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Users MBZ1 and others appear to be ganging up to whitewash the article of references to Israel described in detail in sources that have been determined to be reliable. MBZ1 also reverted the revision of RomaC.Preciseaccuracy (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

"Be aware that the administrator dealing with your report will also consider your behaviour and therefore the person filing the report may also be blocked to prevent further disruption." Both editors were edit warring. Protection may be needed but both should suffer the same consequences if ti is deemed appropriate.

Reversions by Binksternet:

1. 23:57, 26 July 2010 (edit summary: "Restoring the Ketcham piece as very reliable journalism")
2. 00:11, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "Restoring my version as it addresses both possibilities, that the Israeli art scam may be a spy ring, and that it may be a simple scam.")
3. 00:39, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "Undid revision 375643734 by Mbz1 (talk) I see no consensus among involved editors. Can you point out how you arrived at that conclusion?")
4. 18:45, 27 July 2010 (edit summary: "Restoring per Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive")

—Cptnono (talk) 20:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Mbz1

1. The article in question undergone a deletion request and was kept as no consensus with the condition of removing POV.
2. The discussion on the article is ongoing here So far 6 editors voted to keep an old version, and only 2 to re-write it.
3. Here I asked to wait with doing major changes to the article until the votes is closed according to BOLD, revert, discuss.
4. There are many POV issues and the sourcing in the revised version.Here's only one example: "Fox News Channel included aspects of the scandal in a series discussing potential Israeli espionage in the United States. These included allegations that Israeli agents had also penetrated military bases and other government offices" The reference given to that statement is like that: Carl Cameron (December 11, 2001). Special Report with Brit Hume (Television). Fox News Channel. Event occurs at 2:10.</ref> , linked only to Misplaced Pages articles, and not to the program itself. I could provide more of the problems by request --Mbz1 (talk) 20:45, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Both editors blocked There is clear evidence both editors edit-warred and that they were the primary edit warriors on this article. However, Mbz1 has a much more prolific block log, so I blocked him for forty-eight hours, while only blocking Binksternet for twenty-four. I think if these two can quit claiming various ArbCom cases support their edit warring and realize what they're doing is simply... well... edit-warring, this can be resolved amicably. Okay, probably not, but I'll give them a chance. Subsequent blocks/sanctions will, obviously, be significantly greater, especially for Mbz1. -- tariqabjotu 21:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by RomaC User:Binksternet tried to bring some policy-based sense to an article basically being managed by a team of editors. As things heated up, Binksternet tried to reason with Mbz1 on his Talk page. Mbz1 deleted the comments with a "not interested" summary. Mbz1 then turned on Binksternet on the article Talk, notched several drive-by endorsements from comrades, then reverted to a weeks-old version of the article. He was reverted by two different editors. Clearly Mbz1 was the disruptive and uncommunicative editor here, we should not allow him to drag down another editor. RomaC 00:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Shuki

I don't understand why the different treatment here. Besides that Mbz1 was editing according to consensus, Binksternet is a supposedly veteran editor was blocked 2 times for edit warring before this one. Edit war is an edit war. --Shuki (talk) 01:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Preciseaccuracy

Apparently, MBZ1 has been blocked between 7-9 times in the past. http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Mbz1#Blocked Preciseaccuracy (talk) 05:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry reported by User:Gonads3 (Result: Warned)

Page: 2010–11 Manchester City F.C. season (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: Blanked whole section.

I attempt discussion here: User talk:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry

Started discussions: Talk:Manchester City F.C.#Squad Numbers 12 and 43 and Talk:Manchester City F.C.#Squad Names.

Comments:

So far this user has failed to discuss this issue in the wider community to gain concensus. I've tried my best to settle this through discussion, without biting, but consider it a failure. The main Manchester City article has these types of change reverted almost immediately by many others (including myself). The official source is here , albeit a little out of date, but no other reliable sources exist. I believe his video source to be invalid in this case, as it's pre-season. They may well have a shock when they have the ability to edit the main article and try this. I may be in error, but welcome a resolution. Thank you for your consideration. gonads 20:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Result - Warned. The discussion at User talk:Mancini's Lasagne invite to Harry#Alex Nimely suggests this editor is planning to keep reverting to get his own version into the article, regardless of what others think. EdJohnston (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Mir Harven reported by User:Kwamikagami (Result: Protected)

• Page: Croatian language (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User: Mir Harven (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Mir Harven is engaged in a slow but long-running edit war to censor the linguistic lineage of Croatian, despite all evidence and common sense. He appears unable to separate this issue from his political/nationalistic priorities. The consensus, based on a huge number of reliable references, is that standard Serbian and Croatian are registers of a single dialect, that the inclusive term for them in English is Serbo-Croatian (at least, that is the name we are currently using for the article), and that therefore this should be reflected in their classification. Mir Harven also has problems with civility, since his arguments have not convinced the rest of us, but for now I'm concerned with stopping the edit war. — kwami (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Page protected -- tariqabjotu 21:31, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Jerzeykydd reported by User:William S. Saturn (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Republican Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jerzeykydd (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: ,

Talk page consensus supports the inclusion of individuals who have been speculated as presidential candidates in reliable sources in the past six months. The above user continues to remove an individual that meets the criteria, simply because of his POV that the individual cannot run, completely ignoring the valid references.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:23, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Comments:

Blocked – for a period of twenty-four hours -- tariqabjotu 21:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Ariana310 reported by Ali Khan (Result: )

Page: Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ariana310 (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:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Ariana310 is disruptive, she is edit-warring with everyone and pushing POV. This request was first skipped so I made a new one.--119.73.8.27 (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Ariana310 has opened a case at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Ahmed shahi which argues that this IP is a sock. He is in fact editing from the range 119.73.0.0/20 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) which was blocked for three months on April 5 due to NisarKand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The latter was indefinitely blocked in 2007, and Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/NisarKand shows he has been socking vigorously since that time. I'm looking at the SPI report to see if the rangeblock should be extended. An SPI clerk has given their support to Ariana310's conclusions on grounds of WP:DUCK. EdJohnston (talk) 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Miacek on page Iran-Iraq war

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

The user 1. I think he made personal attack here in his edit summary by inappropriate use of the term vandalism. He did provide wiki-link to the term he used and hence he should have been aware of the meaning. 2. The user did violate 3rr rule on the page Iran-Iraq War (please see history page. or diff1, diff2, diff3). Xashaiar (talk) 13:14, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

With just 3 rverts, I did not violate that rule (besides, I think this rule does not cover reverting vandalism, such as your adding Kuwait as combatant on Iraqi side). Xashaiar is a user who has been POV-pushing on this article for years .
Although the consensus at talk so far has been that the US (let alone Kuwait!) did not fight along the Iraqis as their cobelligerents, this user keeps propping up from time to time to add the US and the Arab League (and in some edits, also the Soviet Union and even Kuwait!) as combatants along the Iraqis.
In the course of the months, has been supported by a bunch of IP editors (might be his socks, might not be; cf. particularly disruptive one) + plus recently another user with POV record.All other established users keep removing this stuff , , , , 80%93Iraq_War&diff=375895692&oldid=375853799, .
This is clearly a case of falsification and POV pushing. The users have presented no sources, no information on the US troops supposedly fighting alongside Iraqis in battles simply because there are none. That the US forces defended Kuwaiti tankers both against Iranian and Iraqi threats did not make them a cobelligerent of either side, they remained a third party. Dixi. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 13:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Update Only now did I notice that User:Xashaiar is currently subject to sanctions by which the User has confirmed they will abide by 1RR in disputed area, and use process for resolution. He was apparently indefinitely blocked for his disruptive editing, and promised to be more constructive, but has reneged on his promise, so to say. It is up to the sysops to decide, whether to re-instate the original permaban (of 00:26, 18 October 2009, sysop LessHeard vanU) for that account. Miacek and his crime-fighting dog (t) 14:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring