Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:31, 2 January 2012

• WP:AN/3
• WP:AN3
• WP:AN/EW
• WP:ANEW
• WP:AN/3RR

This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule.

• See this guide for instructions on creating diffs for this report.
• If you see that a user may be about to violate the three-revert rule, consider warning them by placing {{subst:uw-3rr}} on their user talk page.

You must notify any user you have reported.

You may use {{subst:An3-notice}} ~~~~ to do so.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Additional notes

• When reporting a user here, your own behavior will also be scrutinized. Be sure you understand WP:REVERT and the definitions below first.
• The format and contents of a 3RR/1RR report are important, use the "Click here to create a new report" button below to have a report template with the necessary fields to work from.
• Possible alternatives to filing here are dispute resolution, or a request for page protection.
• Violations of other restrictions, like WP:1RR violations, may also be brought here. Your report should include two reverts that occurred within a 24-hour period, and a link to where the 1RR restriction was imposed.

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

Sections older than 48 hours are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Twinkle's ARV can be used on the user's page to more easily report their behavior, including automatic handling of diffs.

User:SchmuckyTheCat reported by User:Jim Sukwutput (Result: not blocked)

Page: Kinmen Daily News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: SchmuckyTheCat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 22:39, 26 December 2011‎
• 2nd revert: 19:59, 27 December 2011‎
• 3rd revert: 17:38, 28 December 2011‎
• 4th revert: 18:14, 28 December 2011‎
• 5th revert: 19:01, 28 December 2011‎
• 6th revert: 19:16, 28 December 2011‎
• 7th revert: 19:26, 28 December 2011‎

The last six are in a 24-hour period. I have provided the first revert for context. He has also made three other reverts in the page previously (history)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User is well aware of 3RR policies, having been blocked for it several times.

Comments:
I noticed that the IP were making several changes in line with current naming conventions WP:NC-TW on the article, and also fixed an obvious typo (Jiangsi->Jiangxi), but he was consistently reverted without comment by the user in question (including one revert using Twinkle). While it may disputed whether NC-TW applies in this case, it is clear that the IP's edits were made in good faith and cannot be considered vandalism. Hence, 3RR applies. JimSukwutput 21:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a sock of User:Instantnood. Once determined I just reverted it wholesale. And for these "good faith" edits, what he started doing was replacing perfectly valid stub types with non-existent or non-specific ones. That's disruptive, not good faith. Adding good edits (spelling) to bad (disruption) doesn't change the dynamic. 3RR doesn't apply to disruption, vandalism, and banned users. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Pointing out that Kinmen is not on the island of Taiwan is not disruptive. According to current naming conventions WP:NC-TW, the word Taiwan is used only "when identifying a geographic location on the island of Taiwan". Kinmen is off the coast of Fujian and not on the island of Taiwan; hence we do not use "Taiwanese" to describe articles pertaining to Kinmen. You seem to have an inability of regarding genuine disagreements as anything other than vandalism, even if they are completely in line with Misplaced Pages policies. Such is not an excuse for a blatant violation of 3RR.

As for your sockpuppet accusation, that might or might not be valid, but 3RR clearly states "If you are claiming an exemption, make sure there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains the exemption. When in doubt, do not revert." You did not claim such an exemption or make any comment regarding your suspicion, even when you reported the IP for "vandalism" on AIV (and was told that the IP was not a vandal and many of his edits were valid). Then you proceeded to revert all of the IP's edits, many of which are legitimate and/or talk page comments, using a tool that is designed specifically for anti-vandalism. This is something that you seem to have been doing for a while. 1 2 3 4. While you may have been correct that some of these edits originated from sockpuppets, there is no telling how many potential new users you scared away from Misplaced Pages through your constant abuse of anti-vandalism tools and 3RR to revert every single edit that you disagree with, based on your unconfirmed suspicions. JimSukwutput 22:08, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

He didn't point out that Kinmen is not on Taiwan, he used a stub type that does not exist and that is disruptive.

The view that we only use Taiwan to refer to the island is not what NC-TW says. There are specific instances to use ROC, and specific instances to use Taiwan, but otherwise it was long ago agreed that ROC/Taiwan was interchangable, and like english variations, not to change it because it always explodes into revert warring by various parties. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

• Instantnood has been socking through a ban for a long-time, and I am prepared to accept that SchmuckyTheCat was acting in good faith here and should not be blocked. That being said, the concerns expressed by Jim Sukwutput about the potential downsides to assuming that a potential new, good-faith editor is Instantnood may have some merit (in other words, there are false positives—even checkuser can't decide these things for certain). So, I will urge that SchmuckyTheCat be very sure of his grounds for suspicion in the future, and reflect the grounds for reverting in his edit summaries where appropriate. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Well taken, and I have discussed this with Deryck C as well. In fact, other editors have marked IPs as Instantnood socks that I wasn't sure of. No real complaint though, because they were still disruptive. The area of Chinese editing has become a landmine of disruptive new users and IPs recently because of the controversial move of China.

Checkuser can't confirm anything because the 'named' accounts are long gone. But linking edits on one page from one IP and then seeing them repeated later by another IP are as close as we can. Then combined with edit warring behavior and specific language quirks. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

If I understand you correctly, you are stating that you would have reverted the IP 6 times in 24 hours, even if he is not in fact a sockpuppet ("they were still disruptive"). And you justify this on the basis that there was consensus "not to change it because it always explodes into revert warring by various parties." Are you aware that "preventing another revert warring" is not an excuse for revert warring?

@Newyorkbrad SchmuckyTheCat filed an AIV report without mentioning any suspicions about sockpuppetry, and only when he was told that the user's actions were not vandalism, did he bring up his accusation of sockpuppetry and proceed to revert every edit. I do not see any good faith here; I see a deliberate attempt to circumvent Misplaced Pages policies using fabricated allegations that he employs only when he needs to. While his accusation may or may not have merit (and we will never know because he has made no effort to pursue it), let us not forget that the edit war began before such an allegation was made, and this allegation was only used when he had no other means of obstructing the user in what is essentially a content dispute. His comments here clearly indicate that he would have reverted the user's edits and knowingly broken 3RR even if the user was not a sockpuppet, based on ideological disagreements he had with these IPs; this alone should earn him a long block. JimSukwutput 23:03, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

(←) Reversions of banned users are exempt from 3RR, but that doesn't mean that if you suspect (or are sure of) sockpuppetry, edit warring with them indefinitely and telling them to "go away" is the appropriate course of action. Tag the suspected sock, file an SPI, only revert if you're very sure, or if not, iff the user's blocked. This is how we deal with sockpuppetry while simultaneously preventing things from deteriorating into a free-for-all. "I thought he was a sock" isn't a helpful explanation for edit warring if you've done absolutely nothing to pursue your suspicions. Swarm 23:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

• Not blocked / Warned for now. Consider making sure there's an SPI or reference to a past one—especially when the IP address hasn't changed over the same period of time that an SPI could be run. --slakr 06:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
• Seems like admins here are determined to provide a great arsenal of weapons for every ideological warrior on Misplaced Pages. Whenever you find an IP with whom you have a content dispute, you can report him for vandalism in an attempt to scare him off, and when that fails you can simply cry "sockpuppet" and use an anti-vandalism tool to revert every single one of the IP's edits - including completely innocuous ones such as fixing typos and talk page comments. And you can do this repeatedly against every IP who you disagree with, with insulting comments such as "go away", without doing anything to pursue a sockpuppet investigation, and even claim that you'd knowingly violate 3RR over a content dispute if you have to, and still not get blocked. JimSukwutput 08:29, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• • I noticed that my name has been mentioned in this discussion. I share the concerns of Jim Sukwutput: SchmuckyTheCat is clearly abusing the fact that Instantnood is a blocked sockpuppeteer to advance his position (eg. vs ). There are many valid methods, for example requesting the intervention of other editors, to defend his edit against the alleged sockpuppet without violating the 3RR rule. From my perspective, SchmuckyTheCat is clearly violating 3RR willfully, and merely "citing" his own allegation that the IP is a sockpuppet as a scapegoat. I can but say I share the sentiment Jim expressed in the last sentence of his comment above. Deryck C. 11:47, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Svnpenn reported by User:Perene (Result: Declined)

Page: Comparison of file hosting services (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Svnpenn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user is practicing vandalism by reverting a valid edition from a service and inserting data that is not properly formatted or coherent, since what I wrote is an explanation and what he is inserting is a statement. Perene (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Have you made any attempt to discuss this with the editor? Unless I'm miscounting something, you have made 5 reversions to the page in the past 24 hours, which would make you as likely to be blocked as the editor you're reporting. - SudoGhost 17:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere that the editor has been warned of 3RR, and was likely unaware of it. I've gone ahead and placed a 3RR template on Svnpenn's talk page. Perene, however, was obviously aware of 3RR when they made this report (and when they violated 3RR), so I don't think any template is necessary on their talk page. - SudoGhost 18:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

"I don't see anywhere that the editor has been warned of 3RR" = He was (I didn't used a template so it was a mistake, I simply wrote the same text he left in my talk page on his). The user contacted me in my talk page willing to settle the dispute, and according to him it was only a matter of inserting a Tos (Terms of Service) link from Microsoft in the article, but he could have done that from the start in the < ref > field. There was no need to revert what could be just fixed with a WP:MINOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perene (talk • contribs) 18:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Marking an edit as minor does not mean it is not a revert, you still made 5 reverts to the article, and violated 3RR. Where did you warn Svnpenn of 3RR? I'm not seeing it. The only edit you made to their talk page was this, placing a uw-vandalism1 template to their talk page. - SudoGhost 18:43, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Svnpenn (talk) 07:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Declined — No action. It is hard for an outsider to get any idea of what this is about. There is a huge number of reverts but hardly any discussion on the article talk page. After this moment, if editors continue to revert without discussion, blocks may be issued. Perene's use of the term 'vandalism' is incorrect. EdJohnston (talk) 17:19, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Andriabenia reported by User:Rast5 (Result:Both blocked 48 hrs )

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• 7th revert:
• etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
The user Andriabenia deletes sourced material from the article, never explains his behaviour, do not discuss at talk and make false statements. Rast5 (talk) 19:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Note this is a continuation of a dispute currently at ANI Jezebel'sPonyo 19:49, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Both have been given 48 hours to think about how to stop this childish tit-for-tat and ethnically-based crap. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:26, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:rast5 reported by User:Andriabenia (Result:Both blocked 48 hrs )

Page: George Balanchine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

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

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

PREVIOUS WARNINGS: warned by me, warned by user:Antique Rose, warned by user:Bwilkins. He responded by deleting the warning. He was previously blocked and there is a separate administrative noticeboard case on his name

Comments:

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours Both have been given 48 hours to think about how to stop this childish tit-for-tat and ethnically-based crap. Period. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:27, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Roscelese reported by User:NYyankees51 (Result: No violation)

Page: Crisis pregnancy center (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:

• 1st revert: 06:57 reverted 05:48
• 2nd revert: 06:59 reverted 06:51

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

I brought this up on the editor's talk and she blew it off. NYyankees51 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

No violation — Roscelese's three edits were consecutive. This counts as only one revert. See the WP:3RR page for the detailed rules and search for 'consecutive.' EdJohnston (talk) 21:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Ooops, sorry. NYyankees51 (talk) 22:35, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Collect reported by User:170.148.215.157 (Result:No violation)

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

You can check User Collect's page revision history: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Collect&action=history to see him whitewashing his own page and deleting evidence of him violating Misplaced Pages Deletion policy, edit warring, and whitewashing Boris Berezovsky article. After I warned him on his talkpage he repeatedly deleted my warnings, thereby edit-warring and whitewashing his own page as well. Please take some action against him, as well as restore deleted materials on http://en.wikipedia.org/Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman) page. Thanks a lot 170.148.198.157 (talk) 22:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation But I'm tempted to apply WP:BOOMERANG... Salvio 22:42, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Youreallycan reported by User:Biker Biker (Result: Page protected)

Page: Association of Global Automakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Youreallycan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

• 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: diff
Also, if you take a look the contributions for Scheinwerfermann (talk · contribs) - both talk page postings and edit histories - you will see that he too tried to resolve this to no avail. --Biker Biker (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Comments:
This editor was requested by a paid-for editor to try to resolve a number of tags on the article. This editor came to the talk page, posted some questions and then remove the tags (before waiting for others to reply to the discussions). The tags were reinstated (and reasons were given) yet the editor repeated removed them despite the attempted discussion by others on the talk page. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:48, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• - Biker biker is also over the 3rr - its a template dispute - I have requested him to add explanations to the talkpage for his reason to add the templates but he has added nothing - as such if he won't explain the reasons for them, I am in my right to remove them. Youreallycan (talk)
  • Page protected By the way, you were both edit warring... Salvio 22:52, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
    • I will still be there when he wakes up waiting for his explanations for his template additions - my questions are already there unanswered on the article talkpage. Youreallycan (talk) 22:55, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• I hope that page protection and removing some of Biker Biker's editing powers are not the only result of this notice. Youreallycan clearly and flagrantly violated 3RR in removing material that was clearly supported by editor consensus. Youreallycan really should be punished for his flagrant edit warring. Ebikeguy (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  Aside from the obvious edit-warring on both sides, if an editor has the time to template an article he should make time to expand on the issues on the talk page that these issues relate to. I agree that once a discussion exists the template relating to the discussion shouldn't be removed until the problem is resolved, but drive by templating with no further elucidation isn't particularly helpful. If someone removes the template, it is best to address your concerns on the talk page and then re-add the template, and then the editors developing the article can at least see where you are coming from. Betty Logan (talk) 03:37, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

  Be that as it may, the items you bring up do not serve as valid reasons for an editor to violate 3RR. Youreallycan's flagrant edit warring with multiple editors in this matter should result in a block. Ebikeguy (talk) 03:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, they are meant to stop continued disruption. This has been achieved by protecting the page, so I don't see what a block would achieve at this point. A block would mean the editor would not be able to participate in the discussion on the talk page, and would likely hinder the resolution of the dispute. I can't see that being a good thing. - SudoGhost 03:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

The page protection, in this case, puzzles me. Youreallycan was reverting multiple editors far in excess of 3 times. Consensus clearly opposed his/her edits, and the matter was discussed at length on the talk page. Yet "the disruption" is now deemed to be over because the page was frozen in the form opposed by consensus. I do understand that blocks are not punitive (although they often seem to be used as punishment, despite this policy), but I also think a more elegant way to end the disruption in this case would have been to block the editor who was removing material against consensus. Ebikeguy (talk) 04:44, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that SudoGhost expresses my feelings precisely. However, Ebikeguy, there is no 3-rr exception for being right; so, BikerBiker was violating 3-rr too. It doesn't matter if he was reverting to a version consensus supported. He just should have stopped reverting and followed WP:DR. He didn't. However, instead of blocking them both, as I could have done, which would have removed two editors from the ongoing discussion, I stopped the edit war, and the disruption it caused, by protecting the page; thereby allowing everyone to express his opinion in the discussion. Salvio 13:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - SIX fast reverts by OfftoRioRob (a serial offender) and not so much as a tsk tsk, let alone the one-month-plus block he deserves!?!?! Shameful. Carrite (talk) 22:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

User:Night w reported by User:Danlaycock (Result: Warned)

Page: Misplaced Pages:Contributor copyright investigations/Night w (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Night w (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:

A few days ago I fixed a couple copyvios by this user and notated it on the users CCI page. Shortly thereafter, the user demanded that I no longer edit their CCI, which I readily agreed to. The editor also requested that I "adjust" my comments on the CCI. I asked the user how they would like me to adjust my comments, but never received a response. Instead, the used decided to delete my comments all together without my consent, violating the 3RR in the process.

I pointed the user to WP:TALKO and requested that the user stop deleting my comments in my edit summaries as well as on the users talk page but this was ignored. I attempted to address the users concerns by restoring my comments in a hidden state (using {{hat}} and {{hab}}), but this was also quickly reverted.

The user has a history of editing my comments (, , ) in spite of my requests not to do so.

My comments might be terse, but certainly nothing egregious, especially given the context of an active CCI of the users editing history. If an uninvolved admin requests that I remove my comments then I will, but I don't think the use should be removing them.

The editor has received many previous warnings for edit warring: (ie. 1, 2, 3). TDL (talk) 15:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

In your edit summaries, you cite talk page guidelines—assuming you're familiar with the very guidelines you cite, you're surely aware that I'm within my right to remove personal attacks from any page (let alone a standard cleanup page). Though that doesn't excuse edit-warring, it takes two to make one; don't pretend that your behaviour is better than mine. I'll happily respond to your "attempt to resolve the dispute"—which you posted half-an-hour after my last edit and your own third revert—now that I'm online... You were quite obviously aware that I hadn't read the comment, since you altered it outright moments before filing this report, yet casually claim to administrators that I "ignored" it. If that's an actual attempt at resolving the dispute, then let's do it. But from here it looks like you waited until I was obviously offline.

1. You added personal attacks and comments that were blatantly intended to be condescending to a page where the idea is simply to check off that a contribution has been reviewed.
2. You didn't "readily" agree to anything I asked of you—only after the consulting administrator encouraged you to back off did you relent.
3. You admitted to keeping a record of content still present in the mainspace that might contain infringements, yet you refuse to make it public when I ask you to.

Your entire ethos seems bent on trying to get back at me for some ancient grievances by slandering my username wherever the opportunity presents itself (e.g., "editor has received many previous warnings for edit warring", diffs from way back included). Nightw 05:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC) Thank you Ed, for notifying me.

Questioning another editors understanding of copyright violations, when said editor has clearly demonstrated to the community a lack of such comprehension (therefore the CCI investigation) and an inability to WP:HEAR others trying to explain it to them, is certainly not a personal attack. (However, you calling me "pathetic" is.) WP:RPA clearly explains why only in clear cut cases should a user remove other editors personal attacks. As I've said previously, I'll happily remove them if an uninvolved admin requests me to.

I waited 8 hours before filling the report as a good faith effort to give you an opportunity to self revert as requested on your talk page. But, now that you are online, why not self revert and make this issue go away? TDL (talk) 16:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Warned Only warning as user thought they were removing a personal attack, other issues at play also. -- DQ (t) (e) 22:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn reported by User:Screwball23 (Result: No violation - and warning to filer)

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William S. Saturn (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:

Comments:

The user Screwball continues to remove the notable candidate Stewart Greenleaf ahead of the New Hampshire Primary. He is the one that should be blocked for disruption. Please read the talk page of the article for more information. Three editors have tried to explain to him that he is wrong--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:08, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

• No violation Screwball, you're fortunate that the WP:BOOMERANG didn't swing around. The definition of "candidate" is "someone on the ballot". If you remove the candidate even one more time, you will find the boomerang (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

This is absolute nonsense. He is not a declared candidate. Did you look at the talk page discussion or did you side with Saturn within the first 10 seconds? Because I don't see any rationale that supports the idea that he is a national candidate. If anything, he belongs on the NH primary page and that's it. There is no reason to put him on the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 page because he is not a national figure for president of the United States running a national campaign. He is not significant or notable to the page in question. I want an unbiased editor, because you clearly have not taken enough time to get both sides here.--Screwball23 talk 16:40, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Zenanarh and User:Silvio1973 reported by User:Whenaxis (Result: Final warning)

Page: Luciano Laurana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) AND Zadar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Zenanarh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Silvio1973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Luciano Laurana

Previous version reverted to for Luciano Laurana:

Edit 1: Revert 1: Edit 2: Revert 2: Revert 3: Revert 4: Revert 5: Revert 6: Revert 7:

For Luciano Laurana because there are personal attacks within the reversion comments between the editors, I think it would be ideal for a full page protection on this page.

Zadar

Previous version reverted to for Zadar:

Edit 1: Revert 1: Revert 2: Revert 3: Revert 4: Revert 5: Revert 6: Revert 7: Revert 8: Edit 9: Revert 10: Revert 11: Revert 12: Revert 13: Revert 14: Revert 15: Revert 16: Revert 17: Revert 18: Revert 19: Revert 20: Revert 21: Revert 22: Revert 23: Revert 24: Revert 25:

Because of numerous IPs also involved in between edits and because of personal attacks within the reversion comments and on the talk page, I would like to request for full page protection on this page also.

User notice

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning for Silvio1973:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning for Zenanarh:

Talk page discussions

Talk page for Luciano Laurana: Talk:Luciano Laurana
Talk page for Zadar: Talk:Zadar

Comments

Please note: This is a major problem on Zadar - mediation has been requested before but has been rejected. At least one of the users has been banned before. . Arbitrary sanctions have been placed against one of the users before because of their affliation with another edit warring on the page Dalmatia here:

Unfortunately, the next step will have to be sanctions through arbitration because every dispute resolution process is not helping with these users. I just merely came in for a request for a third opinion and I realized that it has spirrled out of control. Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:39, 31 December 2011 (UTC) (Uninvolved, third party - tried resolving dispute for WP:3O)

• Warned Since the warnings about edit warring were given, I don't see any further edit warring, but am not hesitant to block if this continues. I'll be watching the two pages. -- DQ (t) (e) 23:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Thank you! Cheers and happy new year - Whenaxis about talk contribs 23:50, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Demdem reported by User:Subtropical-man (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Malta (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Demdem (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 attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
I tried to argue in the description of the changes, I tried to argue in the discussion - no response. 4 reverts exist, I see no chance for stop the edit war in the near future. Subtropical-man (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Clear reverts at 19:22, 20:13,20;27,20:34. Was warned previously. Kuru (talk) 22:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Darkness Shines reported by User:TopGun (Result: Articles protected)

Page: Anti-Pakistan sentiment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Separatist movements of India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Inter-Services Intelligence (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: Taliban (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Darkness Shines (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• Too many diffs check history you'll see. (But please note that some of my edits are just adding citations or after BRD... so don't count them... Esp. in the top article where I only reverted twice). Ok I've decided to add some but there are more.

Diffs for ISI (excluding old ones):

Diffs for article Anti-Pakistan sentiment:

Diffs for Taliban:

Separatist movements of India: Has 2 days old history of 3 reverts favouring a now blocked user for multiple reasons.

Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965: Broken 3RR here with IP and a final edit on me just out side 3RR zone. Clearly visible in history. Even while this report was filed the user has now made a 5th revert of another tag addition with a 3RR cross a day ago.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments: I've only reverted this user twice on 2 pages today once BRD revert on the ISI page. He has been editwaring with 5-6 users in the very recent history of these pages. Also note that he has been asked to turn on email feature (which he might have turned off now) by an editor who recently got blocked for filing a wrongful report against me. He is POV pushing on a range of articles and editwarring with everyone. The article on the top is the current issue along with the ISI article on number three. He was adding verification failed tags to citations deliberately even when the citations clearly supported the content. I quoted the exact sentence from the citation to him on Talk:Anti-Pakistan sentiment where he outrightly denied to listen. Then he was reverted by another editor for the same after which I assumed the BRD cycle to be complete and started other maintainance of the article (which was not reverted by this editor) he instead made a third WP:POINT edit against the consensus to add a dispute tag to the article to use it as a tag of shame. He further made a tit-for-tat edit addition to the ISI article where a previous discussion had taken place at length and I had added his contributions myself (the current content duplicates that and adds some more POV). All these articles are subject to his edit war esp on 30th december he edit warred on 3 of the above mentioned articles in a go. He was also warned at ANI not to make personal attacks against me which he still made after the warning at Talk:Separatist movements of India (he also continued the blanking of an editwarring blocked user:Ashok4himself on this article. This is too obvious now.. he also tried to malign me at User_talk:Magog_the_Ogre#TopGun where he was rebutted by Magog. Further more he was in a battle edit war with an IP recently which was blocked and he was warned. --lTopGunl (talk) 15:11, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've not reported you for violating 3RR but for editwarring upto 3RR at so many articles with atleast 5 users that I count, Mar4d, Ambelland, an IP, Ashlin (he reverted your edited and you tagged dispute tag on a third edit) and me... may be more? He is again trying to deceive the admins since the page he mentioned has already been reported for at RFPP and the page for protected for the purpose (since there too he was editwarring with 2 editors atleast). He's also misleading here about the Separatist movement page where I reverted a user who was not explaining and simply blanking the page (and he got blocked). And this showing of diffs of actioned pages is clearly another attempt to malign me like the one at Magog's talk page. Also note that he clearly tried to push in against me in a report where user JCAla wrongfully reported me and got blocked . --lTopGunl (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• He has been specifically and categorically told by the administrator Magog not to make personal attacks against me and not to hound me, both at ANI and at my talk page . His diffs below are misleading representations of either old and already actioned cases or BRD reverts / citation additions only. He is now desperately pointing all fingers at me to either save him self from a block or get me blocked with him (take in to notice JCAla's recent block as relevant to this). --lTopGunl (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I've only informed Magog per the rules he set at Talk:Taliban at a content dispute which required me to do so, and he has also given administrative warnings to him at ANI and my talk page as shown above. So he is an already aware administrator and should not be considered as canvassing at all. Also Darkness Shines 'disagreement' with Magog was over flooding his talk page with a mal report against me which has some what evolved here. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments by accused

• I have not broken 3RR once on any article, which explains why TG has failed to supply any difs. I have acted in accordance with policy at all times, all content remove or added adheres to WP:V & WP:NPOV. I have never enabled the e-mail function, and I fail to see what this has to do with anything either? This is an obvious case of an editor trying to gain the upper hand by looking for a block of a perceived opponent. The edit warrior here is in fact TG. . Edit wars uncited content into an article. Reverets in unsourced content. Other states of India:- Citation needed. Various editors arguing with TG over his edit warring uncited content into an article. When pointed out on his talk page his habit of reverting unsourced content into articles he says "Blah" More to follow Darkness Shines (talk) 15:53, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Please provide a dff were I have made PA against you since I was asked not to Darkness Shines (talk) 16:17, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I've given the talk page and admins can see it since it's full of it. --lTopGunl (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

No, you need to provide a diff were I have made a PA against you since I was asked not to. Please write only in your own section above. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Indo-Pakistani Air War of 1965 Has only two reverts by myself since 15:38, 30 December 2011 Which was explained on the talk page TG has also has two reverts to this article in the same time period.
• Separatist movements of India Has two reverts by myself since 16:11, 30 December 2011 Which was explained on the article talk page Unexplained removal TG has also two reverts in the same time period. Note, the majority of this content was not sourced.
• Inter-Services Intelligence has one revert by myself since 23:05, 11 December 2011‎ Which was also brought to the talk page Darkness Shines (talk) 16:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Taliban has exactly one revert by myself ever. Also brought to the talk page TG on the other hand has two reverts on this article today. Please note, my edit fixed a misrepresentation of a source. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• Anti-Pakistan sentiment I did reach 3RR on this article, due to an IP editor misrepresenting a source I also brought this to the talk page were my view was supported by another editor. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I also do not appreciate TG canvassing an administrator whom I have had a personal disagreement with.
• I have asked TG to amend his new statements As the two article he says I reached and broke 3r on are not correct. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
• TG seems to think that my adding of a tag to an article is a revert? Does adding a tag really count as a revert? Darkness Shines (talk) 18:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Comment by the Also-Involved

I was also involved on the Separatist movements of India article. User:TopGun was trying to insert unsourced information, while I removed it, twice. To my mind, he has a clear misunderstanding about WP:Verifiability and WP:Citing Sources with regards to where the burden lies for inserting material in the article (see the talk page). I have no comment on user:Darkness Shines, nor on any of the other pages listed. Buddy431 (talk) 17:32, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding? I only made one revert there when you blanked content which was being done by Ashok who was blocked for the same. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

That's quite untrue. Ashock was blocked for maybe implying that you shouldn't edit this article because of your nationality. I'm saying that you shouldn't edit any article until you learn to cite sources when you add information. Buddy431 (talk) 17:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

'Additional comment by other user:'

Topgun's disruptive editing extends to other pages and users as well. Please see his bullying behaviour on the 1971 war article page (particularly the very end where he fails to, like here, provide evidence for his accusations-- just a "see history" or an occasional/uncontexted link with no pt for pt rebuttal). For a full summation of his harassment of other editors through baseless warnings, report/ban harassment, and bullying, please see this post by me. Here is a quick summation of his harassing behaviour which is severely impacting the quality of wikipages and the collegiality among editors:

1. either makes accusations or counteraccusations without providing any evidence (see how he still didn't fulfill Darkness' request for diffs). he'll even outright accuse others of lying when he himself is attempting to deceive by not providing evidence.
2. When users provide clear links and quotes, he just states "cherrypicks" without explaining how. Topgun has a long track record of non-evidence based accusations and poorly sourced or uncited edits. Then screams "vandalism" when poor edit removed or replaced.
3. edit wars with goodfaith users, then warns or reports them for blocks when he himself is editwarring
4. openly povpushes, but escapes by preemptively reporting users to admins and then reverts on the basis of his blocking them.
5. My own talk page is filled with topgun's threats to have me blocked or banned if I don't let him have his way.

As such, please be cautioned that topgun's reporting of darkness shines is likely not in good faith and is a result of topgun's multiple concurrent/unrelated edit wars and recent admin scrutiny of tg's own disruptive editing and bullying of editors. It is not an accident (or some insidious offline campaign) that so many editors and admins have been rebuking topgun's behaviour of their own volition. TopGun has become a wikipedia community problem and we hope given the outpouring of frustration with his actions (and his, frankly, rather uncanny ability to pull a fast one on admins), that this bullying behaviour be taken into consideration. Even a mccarthy couldn't fool all of the people all of the time...98.165.115.152 (talk) 23:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Page protected — Four articles are protected for two weeks. These articles must be of little current value to our readers because they are in many cases disappearing under a forest of dispute and citation-needed tags. Taliban is left unprotected but any continued warring there may receive admin attention. Since disputes have been raging for quite a while and involving many of the same editors, I foresee the need for some community topic bans if things don't settle down. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley reported by User:Good Sumaritan (No violation: )

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

User Matsci going to create an SPI

Page: IPCC Summary for Policymakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: William M. Connolley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: None given but this user is fully aware that CC pages are 1RR.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I am uninvolved in the dispute and wish to remain that way.

Comments:

The page in question is clearly covered by the CC general sanctions. WMC is fully aware of the restrictions being highlighted here and should not need to be warned not to edit war. --Good Sumaritan (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• The article is not under a one revert restriction that I can see? The reporter has also created a page in William M. Connolley userspace? This looks a little pointy. The reporter has also never edited the article in question? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:45, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• I was under the impression that the CC arbitration case imposed general sanctions and a 1RR restriction for CC articles. Upon further review I appear to be mistaken on that point. This complaint can be closed. --Good Sumaritan (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• My suspicion is that Good Sumaritan (talk · contribs) and TouchPoints (talk · contribs), the reverter and very recently created account, are probably related accounts. That can be checked in an SPI report. Mathsci (talk) 21:33, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Rast5 reported by User:Andriabenia (blocked 2 weeks, 1RR indef)

Page: Tumanishvili (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Rast5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• 5th revert:
• 6th revert:
• etc.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
He refuses to explain himself and keeps reverting, even after being informed by an administrator - whom he berated - that the Armenian side of the family in question was not princely. He left a comment on my page that talked about Joseph Stalin of all things he could have explained in the time he wasted writing nonsense.

User clearly hasn't taken a hint. Has been blocked twice for EW, I suggest a indef block. (Uninvolved) PaoloNapolitano 21:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 2 weeks In addition, I will place an indefinite 1RR for AA articles per WP:ARBAA2. Kuru (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring