Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:53, 2 April 2012

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:Kermansh reported by User:Fram (Result: A day)

Page: List of people known as The Great (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Kermansh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

User:Vice regent reported by User:AnkhMorpork (Result: Stale)

Page: 2012 Midi-Pyrénées shootings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Vice regent (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: Removed content regarding traveling abroad to be indoctrinated in terror
• 2nd revert: Amended reliably sourced undisputed content
• 3rd revert: Removed reliably sourced content on facebook tribute
• 4th revert: Removed The Independent as a source because of typo within article
• 5th revert: Removed sourced graveyard vandalism content
• 6th revert: Removed sourced content relating to rallies
• 7th revert: Removed sourced content relating to rallies and graveyard vandalism
• 8th revert: Amended sourced content
• 9th revert: Removed Koran content
• 10th revert: Removed "Allahu Akbar" content

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:I must stress I have no 3rr complaints. My concern is the disruptive style of editing of this user. The user has frequently removed sourced content from the article and sources themselves. The user rarely discusses his changes on the talk page, and when they do, it is after several requests and a fait acompli amendment. There has been no WP:BRD as user has not discussed many of the above edits on the Talk page. For example the content removal regarding travelling abroad and today's removal of all references to the Koran and Allahu Akbar remain unexplained. I have asked whether third party assistance or arbitration will be of help but have been ignored.

Best Wishes Ankh.Morpork 15:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Anyone reading this, I would like to say several things. First, AnkhMorpork seems to have violated 3RR (and I reported it), but I asked the user to self-revert, and once he did so I withdrew my report.

The above quote "reverts" are not characteristic of edit-warring. When looked at along with the discussion, they resemble the Misplaced Pages:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. My edits reflect the updated consensus I have formed with users on the talk page.

The following sections show that I do discuss: Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Deletion_of_Celebration_of_the_massacre, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Description_of_shooter, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#Rallies, Talk:2012_Midi-Pyrénées_shootings#WP:UNDUE.

"I have asked whether third party assistance or arbitration will be of help but have been ignored". I suggested third party assistance, and have welcomed it. Yes, I have ignored requests for arbitration - its far too early for that.

(A report was filed against AnkhMorpork for making personal attacks against me, and it was resolved.)

VR _talk 15:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Result: Stale. The last revert shown above is from 30 March. Edits of the article by Vice regent and AnkhMorpork appear to be swamped by a large number of edits from others. Without great patience an admin would have trouble seeing if an actual revert war is taking place, in any direction. If you can focus on a specific issue, consider opening a WP:Request for comment on the article talk page. See WP:Dispute resolution for other options you might consider. EdJohnston (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

User:71.255.245.137 reported by AzureCitizen (talk) (Result: Article semied)

Page: Bradley Manning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: 71.255.245.137 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Diff of warning: here

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

1. 06:29, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Given Manning's female gender identity, only female pronouns are correct. Included in this article is a quote implying she would rather be executed than misgendered.")
2. 06:39, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484657538 by Meco (talk) due to uncorrect pronoun usage")
3. 06:57, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484659173 by SatenikTamar (talk)")
4. 17:40, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484660805 by 180.254.97.177 (talk) It is incorrect to refer to a female-identified person by male pronouns.")
5. 22:30, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484760635 by Srich32977 (talk) Manning clearly identifies as female; reffering to her with masculine pronouns is both incorrect and disrespectful.")
6. 22:47, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484767749 by AzureCitizen (talk) See talk comment.")
7. 22:54, 30 March 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 484768170 by AzureCitizen (talk) If anyone had evidence for Manning identifying as male it might be appropriate to default to masculine pronouns; this is not the case.")

It appears this IP editor feels strongly that they are "right" and they do not understand the consensus process. The warning diff provided above happened between the IP user's 2nd and 3rd revert, so either they don't understand WP:3RR in this respect or they are simply ignoring it. AzureCitizen (talk) 23:00, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected by Department of Redundancy Department Salvio 11:57, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Banana Fingers reported by User:cloudz679 (Result: Stale, but warned about NPA)

Page: Stephan Schröck (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Banana Fingers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: some discussion here: User talk:Cyrus35334

Comments:
Banana Fingers is being very disruptive at a number of other articles including Rob Gier, usually making a high number of reverts without leaving comments anywhere, e.g. absent edit summaries, and making it difficult to establish reasons for change. After placing an edit warring notice on his user page this morning, he continued reverting in disregard of the matter. His manner and conduct should not be allowed to continue. Cloudz679 18:18, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Stale; last revert was several hours ago. Rereport if it starts up again. Given that Banana Fingers has been blocked twice for personal attacks, I will also issue an NPA warning. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/69.210.244.202 Reported by User:Musicfreak7676 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Nicole Scherzinger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 69.210.244.202 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Comments:
This IP keeps undoing edits to Nicole Scherzinger and is acting a very "stan" way, and is very disruptive to the editing of Misplaced Pages. Their edits are not constructive or sourced. I warned them that YouTube is not a source, and they continue to add it and laugh in my face. _{MusicFreak7676} 19:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:216.227.26.56 reported by User:Tampabay721 (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Florida State Seminoles football (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 216.227.26.56 (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:

Hasn't responded to others' comments in edit summaries, discussion on the talk page, or 3RR warning. Just puts all the material back without explanation or acknowledgement of disagreement with other editors. I have never reported anyone for 3RR before but this is all I know I can do without violating 3RR myself. Tampabay721 (talk) 19:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesrand reported by User:Edcolins (Result: A day)

Page: Brian Camelio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jamesrand (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: see Talk:Brian Camelio#Patent Dispute sections (search for instance for "I agree with Nowa that "we should avoid burdening the article with the ongoing play by play of the lawsuit"." and "Neither I nor Nowa (I presume) are willing to remove the complete paragraph. In other words, I agree with this edit by Nowa")

Comments:
Very similar edit warring on the page Kickstarter (which includes almost the same section...). --Edcolins (talk) 21:26, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio 21:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

3rd revert on 24-Feb-2012.

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

5th revert on 1-Apr-2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

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

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

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

#3 revert on 24-Feb-2012.

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

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

• Meanwhile, concerning placement of album Sheik Yerbouti:

Edit by Aerosmith366 on 21-Jan-2012

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

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

...

Your #3 revert on 4-Feb-2012

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

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

• Misplaced Pages:Disruptive#Attempts_to_evade_detection:

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

• Misplaced Pages:Disruptive#Signs_of_disruptive_editing:

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

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

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

This resulted in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

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

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

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

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

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

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

Previous attempts are found in the following archive sections:

• FTN 1
• RSN
• FTN 2
• FTN 3

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

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

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

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

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

(Unsigned comment by WLU)

Sorry for the awkward response: I've never been written up here before, unlike WLU...

My Attempt at Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

WLU's Year-Long Wikihounding of Me

The real problem is that WLU has been wikihounding me since a debate in Feb 2011. Here is a list of the other articles he and I have had conflicts at, with the dates: (For clarity, I've omitted noticeboards, etc.)

• List of paraphilias(my first edit 2009-05-05 13:24/WLU's first edit 2009-07-13 20:17) - WLU edited before conflict, but still not first
• Misplaced Pages talk:Conflicts of interest (medicine) (my first edit 2011-02-19 23:53/WLU's first edit 2011-02-21 15:32) - WLU rushed to support a friend's user space ownership rights when the article was not in user space. He ended up "nuking" the talk page. He has been hounding me ever since.
• Paraphilic infantilism(my first edit 2006-01-20/WLU's first edit 2011-02-28)
• Adult diaper(2010-09-25/2011-03-01)
• Diaper fetishism(2006-07-10/2011-03-03)
• Infantilism(2007-12-13/2011-03-02)
• Talk:Homosexuality(2010-09-27/2012-02-05) - WLU reacted to my comment by doing the opposite ... at the less-defended paraphilia article
• Paraphilia(2009-06-25/2012-02-05)
• Talk:Andrea James (2012-03-02/2012-02-10) - another editor moved the entire discussion from ANI while I was typing
• Sexology(2009-07-06/2012-03-04)

WLU has been following me to articles and causing conflict.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

66.108.2.128 reported by User:Acps110 (Result: )

Page: High Line (New York City) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 66.108.2.128 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

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

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 19:10, March 31, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 2nd revert: 16:14, April 1, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 3rd revert: 21:29, April 1, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 4th revert: 05:41, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.
• 5th revert: 16:07, April 2, 2012. Removing Spain from infobox, adding Cuban flag.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Comments:

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

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

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

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

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: - entire talk page consists of warnings

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

Comments:

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring