Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:49, 9 November 2011

• 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:Therequiembellishere reported by User:Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (Result:declined )

Page: Abdurrahim El-Keib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Contribution: diff (etc.); 1st revert: diff (removing "Ph.D." from infobox alma mater field and information from its profession field
• Re-contribution: diff (etc.); 2nd revert: diff (ditto, plus removing info from citizenship field)
• Re-contribution: diff (etc.); 3rd revert: diff (ditto)
• Re-contribution: diff (etc.); 4th revert: diff (ditto)
• Re-contribution: diff (etc.).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

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

Comments:

Faced with edits filling out the infobox fields under contention, reported editor passes up discussion on talkpage and (tentative?) consensus there, bestirring themself to but proffer terse edit summaries, presumably believing their position obvious (or---

• No violation Not all of these edits are made by the same username - I can only see the editor complained about remove the information a couple of times in four or five days, and I can't see any consensus on the talkpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Point was: Lone-wolf editor kept removing (the precise, four deletions listed above) data without engaging on the talk page, with several editors championing its inclusion, either on the discussion page or via their edits.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Alborz Fallah reported by User:Orartu (Result: Both blocked)

Page: Azarbaijani Kurds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alborz Fallah (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Almost all other edits that I have done is reverted by this user :

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 24 hours (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

There appears to be more edit warring related to this. On the page Iranian Kurdistan they are edit warring. It appears Orartu is marking the page as an orphan while also having reverting edits to add links to other related pages previously. The other user appears to be engaging in the edit war also . IRWolfie- (talk) 17:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Laurifindil reported by De728631 (talk) (Result: )

Page: Quenya (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Laurifindil (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps removing references to a web page that several editors have been classified as reliable and that is frequently used by WP:WikiProject Middle-earth. While this is not 3RR it is still edit-warring and highly disruptive.

Time reported: 18:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

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

1. 15:44, 4 November 2011 (edit summary: "Internet is not a reliable source.")
2. 16:01, 4 November 2011 (edit summary: "Internet is not a reliable source.")
3. 15:17, 5 November 2011 (edit summary: "Internet is not a reliable source.")
4. 13:21, 6 November 2011 (edit summary: "Internet is not a reliable source.")

• Diffs of warnings: , , .

It should also be noted that Laurifindil seems not to be interested in cooperating and discussing consensus. The only time he ever responded to personal communication on his talk page was early this year when I told him how to move pages despite several notices and edit warnings that have been left there. And since a dicussion about another page move in January 2011 he has not participated in any other article talk.

—De728631 (talk) 18:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

User hasn't edited since their last warning, so I'd say report back back if they revert again. Obviously disruptive edit warring. Swarm 11|11|11 19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I just want to let you know that User:Laurifindil is actually Edward Kloczko, which can explain a major part of his attiude and behavior on his edits on en:Misplaced Pages. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 10:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean? How does that explain his edits? I'm going to protect the page so this can be discussed. I've left a note on the talk page. Swarm 11|11|11 17:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

He is well known in France for his tendency to criticize all the websites about Tolkien languages (good or bad, including WP:EN and WP:FR, althought he uses it to self-promotion). On the other hand, he invented a global theory about languages, which includes all the conceptions of Tolkien, earliest like latest, even this conception is in contradiction with Tolkien views. For more about his global theory, see this study. In short, all his contributions, additions like deletions by the way, must be seen with more attention than another contributor, I think. Druth (talk) 21:18, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus at WikiProject Middle-earth that the Encyclopedia of Arda is a standard source in the absence of primary sources: Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Middle-earth/Standards. As to Laurifindil and the scholarly fractions regarding Tolkien linguistics, see also JCBradfield's comment at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Middle-earth#"neo-language". De728631 (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:NoToEurocentist reported by User:Withevenoff (Result: Malformed)

His edits are POV pushing and he continuously make ethnic racial personal attacks to other people.

• 1
• 2

--Withevenoff (talk) 22:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Your report does not indicate what article was in dispute. EdJohnston (talk) 00:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Til Eulenspiegel reported by User:Obsidian Soul (Result: declined)

Page: Genesis creation narrative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see the article history instead as this involves multiple users. The disputed content in question is the proposal to suppress the use of the word "myth" in the article, originally proposed by User:Zenkai251 in this edit. User:Til Eulenspiegel has apparently done this before to the same article back in August, as evidenced from his talk page.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Change "myth" to "narrative" (initiated by User:Zenkai251)

Comments:
I myself will voluntarily cease reverting the changes again to that article (and probably discussion as well). Freezing the article revision to show their desired changes may have been the intent, however. I'll leave it to the administrator to decide if the latest change should be reverted to the version before the current dispute per our policies on WP:FRINGE, WP:VALID, and WP:DUE.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Where is the violation? The article intro had a carefully worked out consensus from last time around many months ago. Jesanj upset the balance in late October with his own version, and since then you and he have been reverting to it steadily against at least 5 others. Yet you want to pretend that you and he somehow make up a 'consensus' agains the other 5 because we are "wrong" and therefore only you and he count for purposes of determining that there is consensus. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:42, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Please discuss this in Talk:Genesis creation narrative#Change "myth" to "narrative" and do not misrepresent the fact that there are more editors against your changes than the ones doing the reverting, let the admin decide on the history and the discussion in question. I will not comment on it any further other than you were warned and still reverted four times rather than continue the discussion initiated by User:Zenkai251.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 13:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

And where did I revert four times? Yet another false statement Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Ooh, good point, I guess I was conflating your reverts with User:PiCo's. Still, taken together they are insistent reverts to a revision not supported by the discussion. I request the page be protected until the dispute is resolved.-- Obsidi♠n Soul 14:04, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined Per this discussion (WP:AN#Second opinion on discretionary sanctions), this report was accidental, and the issue is more appropriate for dispute resolution. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User:Wpiki reported by Fat&Happy (talk) (Result: 31 hours)

Page: Rick Perry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 18:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

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

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

1. 21:56, 6 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: ""Revelant" facts as opposed to opinions")
2. 22:25, 6 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Revision of "Revelant", "terrible writing"")
3. 14:05, 7 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "On "topic" revision")
4. 16:09, 7 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: ""Relevant" censored fiscal policy information reposted")
5. 18:26, 7 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Relisted censored facts pertaining to Perry. Certainly not Bush, Richards, White or Clements...you tell me?")
6. 18:50, 7 November 2011 (compare) (edit summary: "Unlike his predecessors pay as you go Governors, Perry supported bonds could have used his veto power!")

• Diff of warning: here

—Fat&Happy (talk) 18:55, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours Swarm 11|11|11 19:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

User:The Devil's Advocate reported by User:Jordgette (Result: )

Page: 7 World Trade Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: The Devil's Advocate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Since October 19, The Devil's Advocate, who has a history of being blocked for edit warring , has attempted numerous substantial edits to 7 World Trade Center, a Featured Article that had been stable for many months. In many of his edits, he has removed sourced material in a manner consistent with POV-pushing or whitewashing the article toward 9/11 conspiracy theories, and against talk-page consensus. Examples:

Removal of sourced information about physical evidence used by firefighters to predict that the building would collapse due to fire
Weakening of language to support the idea that NIST could not "rule out" the use of thermite to demolish 7WTC
Removal of engineering and fire-safety organizations that collaborated with NIST, such as the American Society of Civil Engineers (the mentions are injurious to CT claims that the investigation was secret, insular, and inadequate)
and Repeated removals of image of Fiterman Hall, a building across the street that was damaged by 7WTC's collapse (the image is injurious to the CT claim that 7WTC collapsed symmetrically into its own footprint)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: ... among numerous others. Most discussion on the talk page from the last two weeks has been various editors trying to explain process and consensus to the user, with his repeated resistance and disruption, for example:

Comments: The user disingenuously hides behind a pretense of impartiality, for example when it was pointed out that his deletions would be applauded by conspiracy theorists .

Thank you for your attention.

-Jordgette 01:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

First, I would like to thank Jordgette for notifying me of the listing before doing so, a courtesy I was not afforded in the previous case mentioned, only finding out about the notice after I was blocked. I would also implore any admin looking at this notice to review my response to the blocking admin on my user talk page and pay attention to the edits (namely that several editors were engaging in tag team reverts thus skirting 3RR). I freely admit I was edit-warring in that case and was wrong to do so, however in this case I am not engaging in any sort of edit war.

While I have made a few reversions, this so-called "edit war" has really just been me pursuing the normal path of WP:BRD. Jordgette is putting forward the false notion that I was simply deleting important information on the collapse. However, my edits arose from a suggestion on splitting the article and all the information I removed from this article was moved to Collapse of the World Trade Center, specifically the sections concerning building 7. I also specifically changed the wikilink in the building 7 article's section on the collapse to go directly to one of those sections in the collapse article.

As for Fiterman Hall two of the edits were part of those efforts to shorten the section. Both of them were before Jordgette expressed any specific issue with removing the information concerning Fiterman Hall. An effort I made to shorten the section after Jordgette's objection left the Fiterman Hall information untouched. Though I did later remove the image again, I still left mentions of Fiterman Hall, including the wikilink to an article that has the exact same image. However I did err in the sense that I did not recall Jordgette specifically objecting to removal of the image, as opposed to removal of the information. Similar to the changes I previously made to the article after discussion I believed that retaining the mention of Fiterman Hall satisfied those previous objections.

Further I would like to note that, although three efforts I made to shorten the section were reverted, I made two later changes that also shortened the article taking consideration of the objections made to previous edits. Jordgette and Tom harrison, another editor who objected to the previous trims, both appear to have agreed with those changes. So my efforts led to exactly what the process is supposed to achieve, a consensus position.

Now, I should mention what Jordgette has excluded, which is a disagreement over the content of a sentence. That change took a sentence that was exactly copied from the source and put it in quotations. Jordgette reverted this change and I reverted that noting it was an exact quote. This was one of two instances over the duration of this period that I simply reverted another editor's changes and, in this case, Jordgette apparently agreed with my reasoning for the revert and rewrites the sentence in response. After that I added the words "According to NIST" and this was reverted by Tom harrison so I insert a similar remark with different wording to see if that would make it more acceptable. When this change was also reverted I started a section in the talk page to express my reasons for wanting the change, specifically focusing on the undue weight it gave to one comment in the source, without considering the greater uncertainty expressed in another part of the source. I also raised a point about the addition improving the flow of the paragraph. That latter argument was completely overlooked by all the other editors and their main response was to discuss issues other than the ones I raised. It should be noted that with Tom and Jordgette's reversions considered (with every single change they undid the insertion of "According to NIST" or similar wording) together they made four reverts over a 24-hour period, circumventing WP:3RR in a perfect example of relay reverting.

The last edit I made appears to be the reason for Jordgette bringing this action and it does involve the same sentence. I made a more substantial change to the sentence that I think had more authoritative wording than my previous changes, thus seeking to accommodate the concerns of Jordgette and other editors, while still avoiding the strict absolutism of the wording they were insisting on. Additionally, the sentence was moved to the intro, which I thought was a much more suitable place for it. I also shortened two paragraphs, including the Fiterman Hall one I mentioned already, with another discussing SEC files and moved this information further up in the section so that they would immediately follow the other paragraphs on the collapse, rather than interrupting talk of the NIST investigation. Jordgette reverted the entirety of the edit and mentioned the admin noticeboard in, what I thought, was a warning not to repeat some change Jordgette found objectionable. In response I once more started a section asking for clarification on what Jordgette specifically objected to about my edit. Two hours after I asked this good faith question is when Jordgette left the comment on my user talk page notifying me of this posting on the noticeboard and Jordgette seemingly indicates having seen my call for discussion only to toss it aside saying: "I'm really not interested in hearing you defend your actions again, so please spare us both the time and energy."

Earlier I mentioned that I had performed two reversions. Aside from the one mentioned above where my reasoning was apparently accepted as legitimate there was another revert that I made two weeks prior. So far the results of that reversion have gone almost completely unchallenged by any editor, with only one part being challenged in the past day. On the other hand, Jordgette and Tom harrison have performed several times more reverts over the same time period, in two cases undoing uncontroversial changes as well as the ones they disliked that I had to restore, with five of their reverts being in the past two days. In light of these facts I hope any admin evaluating this action by Jordgette will dismiss the accusations. I apologize for the length.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm inclined to declined this. It is too complicated for an edit warring case and should probably go through WP:ANI or Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement (whichever is more appropriate). Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - If User:The Devil's Advocate keeps trying to slant the article toward controlled demolition, it will have to be taken to Requests for Enforcement. Tom Harrison 14:25, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Here are the diffs where I merged the information from the building 7 article to the collapse article: . If you look at the current version of that article you will see I have not made any significant changes to the material after moving it. To claim my efforts at summarizing the information on the collapse in the building 7 article are POV-pushing is just absurd. My edits in that respect were consistent with merging information from one article to another.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Enforcement is perhaps a more appropriate forum for this complaint, and that will be the next stop if the action continues. This includes any further attempts to remove sourced information in a manner consistent with whitewashing the 7 World Trade Center article, regardless of whether the information then appears elsewhere (such as in the middle of the much longer, poorly organized article primarily on the collapse of the Twin Towers). -Jordgette 22:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Four reverts by The Devil's Advocate since November 5 and a history of similar reverting in October. I think this should be closed with an edit-warring block and a warning about the discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB911. The reverts can be observed just by looking at the edit history. A verdict on the necessity of admin action can be reached without doing an analysis of the content. It is enough to observe that the editor is consistently pushing one point of view over a period of time and that there is no supporting consensus for his changes on the talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

While I admit it is long, I implore you to read my explanation thoroughly if you have not. What you are talking about in October can hardly be called edit-warring on my part as each edit involved numerous uncontroversial edits, good faith changes that could not even remotely be construed as POV (removing the material SEC files being destroyed would seem to favor those opposing conspiracy theories don't you think), and each new change removed less and less material in response to discussion on the talk page. It was WP:BRD in action and ultimately resulted in a consensus that still stands.

As for me supposedly making "four reverts" I think you are being excessive in describing them all as reverts. In one case, as I noted, the reasoning for the revert was acknowledged as legitimate and the editor made an effort to accommodate that. I reinserted part of the wording because that change did not satisfy all my concerns. Another editor reverted this, and I inserted new wording to see if that would be more acceptable. When it was clear that would not satisfy the concerns of those editors I initiated a discussion in the talk page. All of this would be consistent with WP:BRD again. The next edit, which I presume you are calling a fourth revert, was anything but a revert. It was a substantial rewrite covering several issues that did not restore any previous edit in fact or in spirit. To suggest I was simply restoring some old POV version each time is disingenuous. On the other hand, those two editors pushing hard for a block did exactly that acting as if WP:V overrides WP:NPOV.

For you to even seriously consider a push for a block from someone who makes the push while accusing me of elaborate deceit, demonstrating a woeful inability to assume good faith is incredible. On the other hand, Jordgette clearly expresses a bizarre idea that all information I removed, again in order to shorten the section per WP:SUMMARY, after moving the information to another article was essential for the article so as to counter the claims of conspiracy theorists and that my good faith efforts to shorten the article were solely motivated by POV. It is as absurd in its hypocrisy as it is in its presumptuousness.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 04:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I do not want to seem too pushy in making repeated comments, though I think, since Jordgette is accusing me of pushing a specific point of view that it would be apt for me to explain my opinions on this issue. Generally I do not consider the idea of collapse as a result of fires to be a serious point of contention. While I have not closed my mind to the prospect of a controlled demolition explanation it is not, for me, a matter that I seriously consider or one that I find particularly important to focus on. For me the scientific investigations in this regard present compelling reasons for accepting the official version of events, thought NIST's apparent uncertainty about thermite does not allow me to objectively consider the matter to have been reasonably settled. At the same time I do not consider controlled demolition by any means to be necessary in any way to explain the collapse of building 7 or the twin towers.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 07:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

User:talknic reported by User:No More Mr Nice Guy (Result: blocked 48 hours)

Page: 1948 Arab–Israeli War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: talknic (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:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

This article is under a 1RR restriction per ARBPIA active remedies, as can be seen at the top of the talk page. This editor has been blocked for a 1RR violation on this exact article. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 48 hours Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:56, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User:BryonmorriganUser:VoluntarySlave reported by User:Benjamin9832 (Result: malformed report)

Fascism:

VoluntarySlave|Bryonmorrigan:

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

Comments:

There's no point in trying to resolve this dispute as it has been going on for some time before I got involved. The talk page is not helping. Too many passionate people. This page needs to be frozen because there is a mini-political war going on over the left vs right nature of fascism. Several users are coordinating with one another on blocking additions, reverting edits to get around policy, being nasty, and POV pushing. We all need some cooling off time.

Evidence

More Nonsense Edit Warring To Come!

And of course, it will be by some POV Warrior who wants to whitewash Fascism being on the Right. It's not as if we haven't had this discussion a bajillion times, or that every reputable scholar on the planet considers Fascism to be Right-Wing. Of course, since I've already reverted the silliness, and he's reverted it back, I can't touch it without violating 1RR, so someone else will have to delete all of his deliberate attempts at propagandizing here. I've also reported him to the Edit Warring Noticeboard for his violations of the restrictions placed on this page. Bryonmorrigan (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I see that he has self-reverted, which is a good sign. Lets hope that we can discuss this sensibly now.

It is not so much named editors with different understandings of the subject that puzzle me; It is the never-ending flow of POV IP editors. It sometimes feels a bit like an organised campaign to wear us down, but that way paranoia lies. I think it is just that there are a lot of ill-educated people about who think right=good, left=bad and that nuance is a type of French perfume. Whether somebody is pointing them in our direction I really don't know. The other things I find puzzling are why they get so upset and why they take it out on us. Do they write indignant letters to the historians we use as sources telling them they have got it all wrong? I doubt it. I wish they could just realise that Fascism being on the right doesn't taint the non-Fascist right any more than the non-Stalinist left needs to apologise for Stalin. They are defending themselves against an accusation that isn't even being made. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I think a lot of it is due to people getting their "information" from non-scholars, usually radio talk-show hosts with nothing more than a high-school diploma, or debunked journalists that no reputable historian supports. They have heard all their lives, from everyone from their high-school history teacher onwards, that Fascism is a Right-Wing ideology, so when someone contradicts this, usually by twisting the meanings of the definitions of the terms "Left" and "Right," (usually into some ludicrous "Big Government" vs. "Small Government" paradigm...) or by relying on fraudulent information, or the works of non-historians, they feel that they have learned a "secret truth," and must spread the "news" to all. It's like the "zealotry of the newly-converted." But yes, your comparisons to Stalinism are particularly apt. Your average Right-Winger is no more a "Fascist" than a Left-Winger like Martin Luther King, Jr. was a "Stalinist." -- Bryonmorrigan (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't view it as very becoming for you to speak of me or what my intentions could have been in my absence. I should point out that I haven't encountered a "1RR" article before, I'm afraid I'm not one of you seasoned Wikipedians. I wasn't trying to whitewash anything, my intention was to have the article worded in as objective a way as possible. What is "right" or "left" varies between different countries and different time periods. To try to place fascism on some nonexistent universal left-right scale trivializes the conversation. How for example would you categorize fascism within the left-right paradigm existing in the United States? "Right wing" in US politics refers to the belief in a free market economic system with little to no intervention on the part of the state, and a decentralized, constitutionally limited form of government with more power and autonomy granted to the states. This contrasts greatly with fascists such as Mussolini and Hitler who criticized free market capitalism and favored a highly centralized authoritarian state. Also, despite what your favorite talking heads have told you, just because someone disagrees with you on something does not automatically make them a Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly fan.--Cyrrk (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Magog the Ogre (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

68.118.201.107 reported by User:MelbourneStar (Result: 24h)

Page: John B. Larson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.118.201.107 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 8 November, 2011
• 2nd revert: 8 November, 2011
• 3rd revert: 8 November, 2011
• 4th revert: 8 November, 2011
• 5th revert: 8 November, 2011
• 6th revert: 8 November, 2011
• 7th revert: 8 November, 2011
• 8th revert: 8 November, 2011

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I'm not great at following 3RR all the time - but 4 reverts after the 4th revert, is ridiculous. Note: Ip currently has the latest edit on the article, after 8th revert. (Is this the correct venue in reporting IPs who are in violation of 3RR? Apologies if isn't) -- MST☆R 12:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

• Result: IP has been blocked 24 hours by another admin. EdJohnston (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

User:DMSBel reported by User:Roscelese (Result: 1 week)

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

Previous version reverted to: 04:18, 9 November 2011

• 1st revert: 05:07, 9 November 2011
• 2nd revert: 05:25, 9 November 2011
• 3rd revert: n/a, as abortion-related articles are under 1RR
• 4th revert: n/a

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: n/a in this instance, user is well aware of the restrictions as he has been warned and subsequently blocked in the past for the same behavior on the same article

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Abortion#Maternal_mortality, dispute ongoing, no consensus for DMSBel's edit

Comments:
User has a long history of tendentious problematic editing both on articles and on talkpages with regard both to this subject and to others.

–Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:48, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like he was attempting to fix a typo and intervening edits tripped him up, akin to an edit conflict. Lots of discussion on talk shows he's attempting to edit in good faith. I think we should just warn him to use {{inuse}} next time. – Lionel 06:18, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The discussion on talk shows that no one agrees with him, but he keeps reinserting the same material anyway. It's not about a typo. If it were, other editors would have fixed the typo for him. MastCell  06:23, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Both of DMSBel's reverts look like partial reverts but a partial revert counts as 1 revert per this statement "The 1RR says an editor must not perform more than one revert, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material, on a single page within a 24-hour period." The phrase "a study by David A. Grimes of maternal mortality from 1990 - 1999 estimated" was re-inserted by DMSBel twice via edit-warring. I'm sure now that a block is on the cards. Minima© (talk) 06:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

It looks like DMSBel does not like the result of the Grimes study which found abortion to be 12.5 times safer than childbirth, by some mortality measure. (I have no opinion on whether it belongs in the article or how it should be described, but whether it leaves or goes should depend on consensus). He is trying to change the article to minimize the significance of the Grimes study, ever since he reverted out that reference entirely on 7 November. His edit summary complained that it's more than 10 years old, even though it was published in 2006. He opened a discussion thread at Talk:Abortion#Maternal mortality to argue for the change, but he has found no support there. Three other editors joined that thread to defend the validity of the Grimes results. His persistence in making Grimes-related reverts on 9 November suggests he is planning to ignore the lack of any consensus in his favor. EdJohnston (talk) 06:41, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have left the page substantially as it was. I re-edited part of the safety section to correct an error with dates in it (it stated 1999 when it should have stated 1990-1999 this was an oversight on another editors part), and to specify author of a report which was already mentioned, that with a couple of other minor changes. I have not made any further edits on other matters under discussion on the talk page. I was cut and pasting some material from Wordpad, and cut more than I intended hence mention of another report I imediately took out, pending discussion. The three or four editors there with the same POV might like to wait for others to enter the discussion who could offer a fresh perspective from time to time, and also to allow editors time who are in the process of tidying up edits. I was not aware of the {inuse} template, or how it functions. But thankyou for explaining that. DMSBel (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes I took out the Grimes study when I was told by MastCell that research from the last 5 years normally prefered.DMSBel (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, so a) I never said anything like that, and b) even if I had, the study is from the last 5 years (it was published in 2006). I'm starting to feel like we're outside the realm of objective reality here. MastCell  07:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I have argued not for its removal since then but for contextualisation of it with suggestion a more recent study that would serve that purpose. DMSBel (talk) 06:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 1 week T. Canens (talk) 06:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring