Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:02, 21 January 2013

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

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

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

You must notify any user you have reported.

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

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

Additional notes

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

Definition of edit warring

Definition of the three-revert rule (3RR)

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

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

User:138.88.60.165 reported by User:Andrew Lancaster (Result: )

Page: Haplogroup E-M215 (Y-DNA) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 138.88.60.165 (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:
• 10th revert:
• 11th revert:
• 12th revert:
• 13th revert:
• 14th revert:

(It is a slow edit war, but certainly looking un-endable.)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

• This IP user, who is clearly actually an experienced user, protests that this is actually a sourcing policy based edit war, and so I brought this case to WP:RSN. The editor has completely ignored the consensus there.
• I have obviously also down quite a few reverts! But I have also trying new wordings many times, and the aggressive/punitive style of reactions made to those, is worth noting: , ,

This is a scientific article that requires us to adhere to relevant scientific publications as close as possible, all my arguments, which in my opinion are closest to said publications, can be found in the talk page discussions that you have linked to above, so I see no need of repeating them here again. As it stands now however, we seem to be in an agreement on the lead, that is off-course if you do not decide to change the content again.138.88.60.165 (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I think this must surely be User:Muntuwandi. In any case it is interesting that since this case has been posted here, this editor has announced on the talk page, and now here, that they think a compromise has been reached: "the northern part of East Africa" is to be used instead of the "Horn of Africa"! I think this obviously fudged wording is not going to last the next time someone else who speaks English looks at the article, but this also proves that this editor has some axe to grind about the term Horn of Africa, and is not really concerned with anything else. This is all "edit warring" behaviour, and not how we should edit.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The compromise doesn't really have anything to do with you bringing the thread here, although you are welcome to think that, rather it is the fact that you decided to accept all the reasonable criteria I have asked for (a)Substructure information (b) Same terminology as what is found in scientific publications (c) Substructure based frequency information (d)no terminology that conflicts with area of origin. The 'Northern part of East Africa' statement does not contradict what is in the literature and is also consistent with what is displayed for area of origin.138.88.60.165 (talk) 01:46, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The article is clearly not in a form which is ever going to be a stable compromise, so it is just between reverts. This is because you have in fact never had a consistent rationale. Your sourcing claim, which you developed after first intervening with other arguments, was unanimously rejected at WP:RSN. The only thing that is consistent is you want to remove mention of the Horn of Africa, which is a clear English term.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

After a 35 hour hiatus, Andrew Lancaster has decided to restart the edit war by removing the compromise he had offered himself and re-inserting back into the lead the same terminology that had led to the contention to begin with. As this is the second time he has gone back on his own edits that were seemingly leading to a compromise, it seems as though he rather favors a more protracted war than a quicker resolution. I have now gone back to the exact same terminology as used by the geneticists and all other public sources.

On a related but separate note, he is now also rejecting scientific sources that have been co-signed by the same major authority of the topic of discussion (Fulvio Cruciani), in addition to other scientists that are also authorities in the field, with the excuse “the link is not to a real source or any mention of V6”, the latter part of the excuse is even more baffling as it is blatantly false, given that the frequency of E-V6 in the samples are clearly tabulated in Table 1 of the article, along with the phylogenetic tree in Fig.4.138.88.60.165 (talk) 14:32, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

As explained above, just declaring that there was a good compromise was a reaction to the fact that I posted here, but that declaration never actually made it true. Anyway the occasion for the latest round is that you have also added a new claim to the text which was ungrammatical and needing clarity about the sourcing. (I checked the link and searched for such sources, but found none.) When sourcing claims are challenged, your responsibility is clear, and simply doing another knee jerk revert, re-inserting the wrong wording as well, is not the right way to act. This is edit warring. Just doing reverts is not always edit warring. In the meantime, will you please explain what your previous username was? You are clearly a former editor of this article right?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no reason for you to dwell on who I am, instead of dwelling on the arguments and questions I have been asking you. Why are you insisting on terminology for the subject in question that you can't even source? When I have provided 8 sources ( 4 Authoritative Publications - Cruciani (2002), Cruciani (2004),Cruciani (2006),Semino (2004) , 1 Peripheral publication - Scheinfeldt (2010), and 3 Commercial DNA testing organizations - 23andME,Genographic Project,FTDNA) that use the exact same terminology I am demanding of you to put in the lead of the article. Why instead are you insisting on your own opinion for the terminology in question instead of what is most commonly used both by the scientists and the commercial companies out there? Why also are you insisting on confusing readers with the false implication that the possible place of origin and the high frequency areas of East Africa have been given different terminologies when all authoritative publications actually use the SAME terminology? Those are the questions you need to answer and not who I am.
• With respect to the latest source I gave for E-V6' low presence in Egypt and which you immediately presumed was invalid, I specifically gave a hyperlink for it, which you just simply chose to reject without taking the time to look into it, once again here it is The Berber and the Berbers, Genetic and linguistic diversities, here is another one that takes you directly to the PDF , 138.88.60.165 (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The RS aspect of your argument was rejected unanimously and clearly at WP:RSN. It is the type of nonsense argument made by edit warriors such as Muntuwandi who have worked this article in the past.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

• Comment – You two have both been edit warring on the article. Since at RSN it has been rejected, both of you resumed to edit warring. Hto9950 (talk | contribs) 08:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The problems is still there, yes, but I think it will not go away if I stop editing. Other editors of the article have also tried to fix this problem. I have been trying to avoid editing, and trying to get real discussion, but this continues to fail. Please note that the result at WP:RSN was absolutely unanimous that there is no sourcing reason for the IP editor, presumably User:Muntuwandi, to be insisting on calling the Horn of Africa, "East Africa". Such unanimity is rare. He/she also admits that the Horn of Africa is what others call the relevant part of East of Africa, and has even said that they'll accept "the northern part of East Africa". There is zero support for the position of the IP editor anywhere in the community, and I think that is relevant to whether non 3R "behavior" is called edit warring?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:50, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me explain my position this way: I see myself as simply doing what the community unanimously wants, on an article not many editors visit. That is why I have tried hard to move discussion to bigger forums. So, to be logically consistent, I suggest as follows: if just one experienced and non-involved editor will look at the case and the way this IP editor is working, and declare it a good solution, then let's change "the Horn of Africa" into "the northern part of East Africa" which is the "compromise" this IP editor demands of the WP community. If that happens, then I promise I will not be the next person to change that wording. But I think such twisted English will eventually be changed by someone, right? But if all experienced non involved editors think the proposal is ridiculous (which is, I think, the case) then I do not see myself as edit warring, but I am open to opinions from the community. --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

This question is not just about giving the appropriate, meaning the most commonly used, terminology to one of the regions where the E-M215 lineage is found abundantly, but also having this terminology be consistent with the terminology used for where the lineage putatively emerged as well. For this you not only have to be familiar with the geographic terminologies in question but also some familiarity with the publications involving a certain level of detail of the E-M215 lineage is also necessary. If the 'consensus' of editors here at Misplaced Pages is different from what the authoritative publications and the public in general use for the same topic, then in my opinion, one definitely has a right to vigorously question such a 'consensus'138.88.60.165 (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The place where something is most common is the same as the place it originated? No. Of course you will not be able to find any source for that leap of illogic. In any case it is clear that you've already admitted that the region involved is northern part of East Africa which other people call the Horn of Africa. You are demanding the community not to use the normal term, based on 2 or 3 steps of logic which are simply impossible. This is precisely the kind of thing User:Muntuwandi and his/her many socks have done over the years, in his/her crusade to emphasize everything sub-Saharan at all possible costs. If you are not the same editor, you are a very accurate imitator.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 20:27, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who this user Muntuwandi is that you have been 'accusing' me of being for the past few days, but it doesn't surprise me that you would throw around such accusations without any proof, seeing that bringing proof to what you claim has not been any of your strong suits, at least from the interactions I have had with you for the past couple of weeks. In any event I will once again bring the quotation from the Cruciani (2004) article that explains why I think using different terminologies for the origin and distribution of E-M215 is not only confusing but is actually misleading,

"Several observations point to eastern Africa as the homeland for haplogroup E3b—that is, it had (1) the highest number of different E3b clades (table 1), (2) a high frequency of this haplogroup and a high microsatellite diversity, and, finally, (3)the exclusive presence of the undifferentiated E3b* paragroup."

138.88.60.165 (talk) 21:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please state clearly. Do you claim that this quotation says that the place where something is most common is the same as the place it originated? Don't think so. For this and other reasons, anyone reading that article can see that the authors could never have intended what you are trying to use it for on Misplaced Pages. There are several logical fallacies necessary, not just one. See also WP:RSN.

Anyway I would like to ask again whether there is anyone else can look at this article? After the most recent revert I have now done as promised above and taken the article back to the "compromise" of "the northern part of East Africa". I will not be the next to change it. Is the IP editor's demand considered acceptable by any single member of this community?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you can infer anything from any lack of response to your question. This noticeboard is to report edit-warring not to resolve content disputes. It's true that sometimes editors other than the battling parties express an opinion about the underlying dispute, and it's also true that sometimes content disputes are resolved as a byproduct of a report here, but that's not really the objective of this venue.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have stated clearly and I will restate the same thing again; All the 3 reasons point to the same area of East Africa that we are arguing about, which you insist on calling the Horn of Africa when it is about frequency but want to call it East Africa when it is about origin, I on the other hand insist on leaving it as just East Africa CONSISTENTLY. The same reasoning used by the authors to identify the East African homeland of E-M215 is the same reason the Misplaced Pages article is showing East Africa as a 'possible place of origin' for E-M215. I am not sure how much clearer it can get than this really.138.88.60.165 (talk) 22:35, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

@Bbb23, indeed the question for this noticeboard is whether there is edit warring. The IP editor's efforts to fill this noticeboard with a finished content dispute should not distract from that.

@138.88.60.165, as per the discussions on the article and WP:RSN, of course it is not true either in theory or practice that high frequency is the same as place of origin and that is also clearly not the position of any sources on this subject. You are cherry picking some words out of context, and done some very wrong OR to make your claim. You have never given one source which says that highest frequencies are in "East Africa", and you know very well that to write this is to mislead. Concerning E-M215 there is a massive difference between the Horn of Africa and the rest of East Africa. It is one of the things notable about this haplogroup and you are trying to obscure it, as per the habits of the sock master User:Muntuwandi, who had a long history of efforts to do such things to this article and many others involving Africa.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Not withstanding your manipulation of the words 'high' and 'highest' to somehow bring clarity to your un-sourcable argument, it is still crystal clear that the authors use the SAME terminology for both areas of putative origin and high frequency, which is UNLIKE your proposal, and that is the bottom line. In addition, whatever user-name you will try to associate my IP address with next time (and let it be known that as a testament to your paranoia this is not the first Misplaced Pages character that you are attempting to force an association with me), is just futile and not going to change the above fact one iota either.138.88.63.185 (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:Kansas Bear (Result: Indefinitely blocked)

Page: Uyunid dynasty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs);Ali bin al Mugrab Al Uyuni (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs);Bahrain (historical region) (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:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: , ,

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

Comments:
User:Ashrf1979 has been edit warring on the article Uyunid dynasty, since Jan 6, to include his opinion that the Uyunids were Shiite Muslim. I added a source that stated they were Sunni and was reverted. I started a discussion joined by Ibrahim888 and presented my sources. Ashrf1979's sources were coins(which were later removed under copyright violation) and some book that is not verifiable. Both Ibrahim888 and I waited a week for Ashrf1979 to present his information, but he was not inclined to use the article talk page. After a week Ibrahim888 and I decided to use what sources were verifiable and write the information into the article. Whereupon Ashrf1979, reverted me and demanded on my talk page verification of my sources(which is listed on the article's talk page). I reverted Ashrf1979 once and posted another warning on his talk page, which he ignored and reverted me again. Ashrf1979 has been given every opportunity to present his information/sources to be assessed for reliability and verifiability, but has decided that his opinion overrides the information presented by other editors. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I'm the admin who dealt with Ashrf1979 last time around. He's been twice at AN3:

1. First time at AN3 (January 2010) the report was closed by me with just a warning, hoping that he would eventually learn our policies: WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive120#User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:Jeffro77 (Result: Warned)
2. Second time (April 2012) WP:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive182#User:Ashrf1979 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Two weeks). This was closed with a two week block, also by me. He wanted Nebuchadnezzar to be listed as Bahrani, couldn't provide a source, but kept on reverting endlessly.

In the second 3RR my suggestion was that if problems continued an indefinite block should be considered. Since I'm the only admin who has taken action so far, it needs more views before closing this report. The only article talk page he has ever used is Talk:Bahrani people. An earlier version of his user talk shows that he's been having problems with WP:V for ages. The longest discussion he's ever had seems to be here. He seems to not quite have the ability to edit an English-language encyclopedia, and any explanations of our sourcing rules go over his head. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree generally with your analysis. I would add that Ashrf1979 does also edit talk pages of other editors where he expresses his views. He does more of that than he does on article talk pages. Unfortunately, I do not consider his comments in that area as helpful. Rather, they confirm the fact that he edits from a partisan point of view and is more interested, almost defiant, in his perception of the "truth" than in compliance with Misplaced Pages's policies. However, before indeffing him, I would wait to see if he responds to the comments you left on his talk page. If his response is inadequate or if he continues to edit without responding, I would support an indefinite block.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I have been contacted by Ashrf (who also contacted some other guys). I don't think he realizes how bad this current position is, as he simply asked me to help him verify that the two sources he kept using were valid and to "correct" the article. I'm not sure if it's a language problem or not, but based on a quick look into his history in Arabic Misplaced Pages, he edits the same range of articles. He contacted me before and I gave him some advises in his Arabic talk page about the importance of inline citations, reliable sources and how to deal when in a simple conflict.

I have superficial knowledge about the Uyunid dynasty; the coins that were there are often cited in discussions, but I know this might not be a scientific evidence. It is worth mentioning that these topics (about Shia origins in Bahrain) are usually heated and disputed; the Baharna maintain the position taken by Ashrf that they are the indigenous people of Bahrain where non-Baharna sometimes accuse them of coming from Iraq or Iran. Much of this of course has to do with politics and the topic gets more heated at times of crisis such as the one ongoing in Bahrain currently. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked. Ashrf1979 has continued to edit without responding to EdJohnston's warning/request to respond. I have therefore indefinitely blocked him.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Mar4d reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: Warned)

Page: 2013 India–Pakistan border incident (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mar4d (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 main issues here is not really the editwarring, it is the removal (constantly) of the sourced date for the beginning of this incident January 8 2013, and replacing it with this one giving a start date for the incident as January 6, however the source does not say the incident began on the 6th, and in fact the incident began on the 8th when an Indian trooper had his head loped off by Pakistani infiltrators per the sources Mar4d is engaging in both edit warring and OR. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Adding in new sources and content for verification is not edit warring and in this case, the diffs you've given above are not reverts. Moreover, there's no evidence of successive reverts. It was made fairly clear on the talk page that the incident began on January 6, whereas the India incident occured on January 8. Now unless you're having a problem with counting, January 6 comes before January 8, yet you will not stop reverting the sourced version to your own O.R. version. Will you also explain why you keep on replacing January 8 with January 3 when all the sources we have are showing January 8? At least fix up the original research before reverting. Mar4d (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

You three times rewrote the lede, so you altered another editors work, that is a revert. You reverted in a cat after being told on talk not to and did not get consensus for. You have four reverts. The incident began jan 8th which is sourced in the article. the January 8 incident in Mendhar area of Jammu and Kashmir The incident began when some poor bastard had his head chopped off. And that is all I have to say on the matter Darkness Shines (talk) 11:02, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Wrong again, I added new content, I did not rewrite anything. Your constant lies are shoving the credibility of this thread down the drain. And you yet again contradict yourself, if January 8 is the correct date (which it indeed is), why did you earlier revert me (and also another revert) to support January 3 during your previous edit warring? You're also past 3RR btw. Mar4d (talk) 11:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of lies. Your first diff is from before I added the source, your second was reverting a sock. I have but two reverts on the article, so do not accuse me of edit warring. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's wonderful how the two of you interact so civilly. DS, fix the revert list. It should be in chronological order, oldest first. Right now, it's all mixed up, and I don't intend to sort it out for you. Mar4d, your idea of what constitutes a revert is contrary to policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Done, and I am being civil, given I am being called a liar surprisingly so. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• I get your point about the lie issue, but how are you "done"? You haven't fixed the revert list above.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Thought I had, one was out. Sorry about that. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Mar4d breached WP:3RR with 4 reverts and possibly 5. However, DS, your contention that you reverted only twice is weak. I count three for sure and possibly a fourth, depending on how technical one wants to get. I've come very close to blocking Mar4d, particularly because of the lies accusation, which exacerbates the other behavior. I'm still pondering that. I have a question for you, though, DS. Are you satified with the lead since User:Future Perfect at Sunrise revamped it?--Bbb23 (talk) 15:54, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the minor copyedits? Well if those put me over so be it. And yes I figure FPaS version is OK. Darkness Shines (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To me a copy edit is one where no substance is changed, i.e., grammar, formatting, rewording but only syntactially, etc., but if any substance is changed, and particuarly if it's the source of dispute, then the change of even one character would be a revert. This is all conceptual, though; we'd have to discuss particular edits for this to be more concrete. I don't believe blocking you based on the history here is warranted. Nonetheless, I felt obliged to advise you to be careful.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently on mobile so will make this brief. From what I was able to understand, adding new content does not count as a revert and that appeared to be the case in some of the diffs given above by DS so my contention was over that issue. If I am incorrect, you may let me know and I shall accept the advice. I may have made the 'lieying' comment while I was in a state of frustration. As you insist, I will withdraw the comment and strike it, if that makes things better. Thirdly, does the three-day probation also apply to the talk page or just the article? And should the same not apply to the other involved editor/s Mar4d (talk) 20:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

The only diff listed above where you only added new content was the 5th, but that was altered by subsequent consecutive edits so by the time you were done with the sequence, you had also changed something. Generally, "pure" addition of content is not a revert unless, of course, it is adding something that was previously deleted. Striking your comments, albeit not an apology, is accceptable (to me, anyhow). The 3-day probation does not apply to the talk page. Finally, these conditions apply only to you. Let me know if you accept everything. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Warned. Mar4d has accepted the conditions on my talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Brocach reported by User:BlackPrinceDave (Result: Both blocked 48 hours)

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

User being reported: Laurel Lodged (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: - I'm not trying to resolve it, I'm simply reporting it. They've "tried" to resolve it via edit summaries, it seems.

Comments:

User:Laurel Lodged also has four reverts on this article, so I report him also. BlackPrinceDave (talk) 17:55, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Both editors blocked – for a period of 48 hours.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Alans1977 reported by User:Nick-D (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alans1977 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert: (made one minute after the AN3 notification was posted on his talk page)
• 5th revert: (made well after this report was lodged)
• 6th revert:

Note also an earlier revert on 14 January:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: This material has been under discussion since 15 January at Talk:Tony Abbott#Views on Women, with a consensus to not include it. Alans1977 has not participated in this discussion, and keeps edit warring.

Edit: Alans has just made his first post on the talk page, calling the reversions of his material 'vandalism':

Comments:

Note that this is a report of sustained edit warring instead of engaging in an ongoing discussion in relation to a BLP, which has included a 3RR violation. The 3RR threshold was crossed after this report was lodged. Nick-D (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours Favonian (talk) 10:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Applesandapples reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: No action)

Page: International Crimes Tribunal (Bangladesh) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Applesandapples (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:

Yet another edit warring SPA in a long list of edit warring SPA's on articles which deal with the ICT. Something needs to be done about this given there is paid lobbying going on the article and associated are targets for these SPA's. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:51, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I also need permission from an admin to fix the ref errors caused by this guy. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have asked him for extracts from the source used to support the crap he is putting in. Alright, we can forget the source. Now that we've discussed it, I'm not very bothered about it point blank refuses. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Darkness Shines is being generous with his revert count here. The "1st revert" is not a revert at all, just a restoration of a couple of old sentences with its source. In fact, both of us have made 3RR, Darkness Shines's being , and . He reverted my first edits without warning claiming that I am a sockpuppet. I am not, and am happy for this to be investigated if really necessary. As a side note, I do have other interests which I might have a go at editing later, but I am an editor in good faith. Not a 'paid lobbyist'. Applesandapples (talk) 11:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You restored content already removed, that is a revert. You still have not provided quotes from your source to support the edit, and you cannot as the source does not support it. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And I have requested a CU check you. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I have already said with regards to that particular source, you win, we can forget it. I really don't know what I have done to provoke such hostility from you from the start.Applesandapples (talk) 11:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

So you admit you added content to an article without verification? And the nedit warred it in? And have still not self reverted? Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

See the article's talk page for the discussion on this source. I also find it so rich for you to speak about edit wars. It's not the first time you've been involved in one either, by the looks of things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Applesandapples (talk • contribs) 11:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Request. Under WP:ARBIPA I am requesting this article be put under a 1RR restriction, a notice should be placed on the article talk page and on the edit screen of the article. Darkness Shines (talk) 11:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

This article was protected for a long time. We are trying to make it decent according to wiki editing rules. Just popping up and start edit warring is not a good idea. I am supporting DS's 1RR restriction.--Freemesm (talk) 13:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• I suggest this is closed without action - blocking would be punitive at this point - there has been some reverting which has stopped now - please use discussion more and Misplaced Pages:Third opinion and suchlike - WP:RFC if you can't find agreement - Back off, start again and a 1RR restriction WP:ARBIPA may well be a good idea for such a contentious article.Youreallycan 13:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
• Report closed as no action. 1-rr imposed. Salvio 14:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Protected)

Page: PolitiFact.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Xenophrenic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: (the reverts are all attempts to remove this edit and replace it with language taken from This page from PolitiFact.com].

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

NOTE: Although technically not a 3RR violation, I am arguing that Xenophrenic is gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot. His reverts were at
02:45, 19 January 2013
05:04, 19 January 2013
08:29, 19 January 2013
06:46, 20 January 2013

I am also contending that, given his long history (see notes below) he knew perfectly well that his behavior was exactly four hours past the 24-hour slot.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Xenophrenic is no stranger to our policies on edit warring, having been a party to the Winter Soldier 2 arbcom case, received many warnings over the years and has reported many editors for edit warring --Guy Macon (talk) 11:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree with some of Guy Macon's assertions above: There has been no 3RR violation here, that's correct. I am indeed familiar with our policies on Edit Warring, also correct. In over 6 years of editing, often in controversial subject matter, I have found it necessary to file some reports (please note that 9 of those 10 listed by Macon resulted in "Blocked" results, and 1 marked "Stale", with a note from the closing admin to keep an eye out for the IP's return). So you see, those were not frivolous reports -- I give a lot of thoughtful consideration before I warn or report problem editors. Unfortunately, other editors try to use warnings and this noticeboard as a way to chill discussion or intimidate editors, so yes, I have "received many warnings over the years" -- which have not resulted in administrative action. And yes, I have been a party to an arbitration; the other party has since been permanently community banned for long term tendentious editing, and he was subsequently shown to have been sockpuppeteering even during that arbitration, so I'm not sure how that supports the narrative Macon is advancing.

Incorrect information above (please just click on the diffs to verify):

• "Xenophrenic is gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot", is not only incorrect, but a horrible assumption of bad faith. You seem to have overlooked that I was editing Misplaced Pages at 3:39 (also outside the 24-hour window) which is when intentional "gaming" would have occured if I was of that mindset, but instead I refrained from editing this particular article for several more hours until I could double-check all sources under discussion. When I finally did make another edit, I opted to not reinsert my previous edits, and only rolled back the article to the last stable state prior to Macon's disputed bold edit, pending the resolution of our discussions. So there was no "gaming", even though I had every opportunity to do so.
• The four diffs provided above, made over two days, are not all "reverts". The first one, for instance, actually takes the source and some of the new content provided by Macon and expands it, locates it earlier in the paragraph for context, and preserves his citation. The last of those four edits is actually a rollback to the stable (for the past month) article state prior to Macon's disputed addition, since Macon indicated he wished to follow WP:BRD.
• Also incorrect is Macon's assertion that I was attempting to "replace it with language taken from This page" -- I've never seen that source until Macon linked it here. I was using only the sources provided by Macon, or already present in the article.

TL;DR version: No 3RR violation. No "gaming" of 3RR, despite ample opportunity. Does Macon's 2 reverts, or my 2 reverts and a rollback (technically also a revert), over a 2-day period, constitute edit warring? Not egregiously so IMO, but I'm not the arbiter here. However, a dispute definitely exists, but Macon's disputed edit is still in the article as I type this. Please note that I haven't reverted or deleted it again, nor do I intend to. I'm seeking the most expedient next DR step.

Macon's last Talk page comment says "I stand by my edit", yet he still refuses to address the primary concern about his edit. I can't exactly force his hands to the keyboard and make him explain how he reconciles the date conflict between his content:

In January of 2013 Chrysler, which is owned by Fiat, announced that it will start producing Jeeps in China. Source

and this content:

Chrysler announced in October of 2012 that it will resume producing Jeeps in China. Source1, Source2, Source3, Source4, Source5, Source6, Source7, Source8.

I am unaware of an IDHT noticeboard at which I can raise the issue. What would be the appropriate next WP:DR step to resolve this matter? (Alternatively, if an admin with a spare few minutes of time could persuade Guy Macon to address the date conflict his edit introduces, that would be greatly appreciated). Xenophrenic (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Page protected – Three days. It is disappointing to watch two established editors go right up to the edge of an edit war. I trust that both parties have heard of the WP:Request for comment process and they know how to follow the steps of dispute resolution. EdJohnston (talk) 03:59, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:89.180.159.166/User:89.180.32.43/User:89.180.42.116/User:89.180.109.87/User:89.180.158.223 reported by User:Kahastok (Result: Semi)

Page: National Institute of Statistics and Census of Argentina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported:

• 89.180.159.166 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.180.32.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.180.42.116 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.180.109.87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.180.158.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

All are assumed to be the same editor.

Previous version reverted to:

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:National Institute of Statistics and Census of Argentina#NPOV problem

Comments:

Note that this is both an edit warring and a 3RR case. The last four reverts constitute a 3RR violation, but the others were not within the twenty-four hours. There is a request for page protection outstanding at WP:RFPP, and editor has been repeatedly warned on talk pages for deleting content. I have posted the notification on the most recent IP talk page. I will post a link to this case at WP:RFPP. Kahastok talk 18:08, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Result: Article semiprotected two months. The fluctuating IP is violating WP:SOCK but seems to only care about this one article, so a rangeblock is not worthwhile. EdJohnston (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Pscorp19 reported by User:Collect (Result: )

Page: Mail Online (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Pscorp19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: 21:59 18 Jan
• 2nd revert: 23:19 19 Jan (first of new sequence)
• 3rd revert: 9:40 20 Jan (second)
• 4th revert: 16:20 20 Jan (third)
• 5th revert: 19:19 20 Jan (fourth revert in 20 hours)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 18:29 20 Jan with request for a self-revert. His reply at 18:59 iterating the problem edit and making clear he did not think 3RR was a real rule

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and at WP:3O at

Comments:

User:Pscorp19 is a clear SPA with an inordinate interest in Mail Online accounting for virtually every edit he has every made on Misplaced Pages. He not only declined to self-revert when he was politely asked, he worsened his edit. He made an edit summary calling me "blind" and said on the talk page that: And thank you for your effort to delete facts The 4RR in 20 hours is clear. The refusal to self-revert is clear. And his personal attacks are clear. Note that I engaged in talk page discussion and also solicited a third opinion on this, as well as asking him to self-revert. Collect (talk) 19:09, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Collect is still deleting the facts which I am adding to the MailOnline page. I did not self-revert last edit simply because I wanted to improve this edit according to the opinion of User:Collect. And according my opinion I improved it. The only thing which is clear is that Collect is deleting facts, even without any warning. He also repeatedly deletes the edits of User:Jenova20 in that page. Pscorp19 (talk) 19:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Note. Collect, at the point you asked Pscorp to self-revert, they were not past 3RR. They breached 3RR in their last revert. Although some of his comments are snarky, I don't think they rise to the level of personal attacks. Putting aside the procedural problem, are you satisfied with the material currently in the article (as last revised by Pscorp)? I might add that although you have not breached 3RR, both of you have been edit-warring for a few days.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The prior wording met WP:NPOV. The new wording from the SPA does not meet NPOV. Nor does the talk page support the "new edit" nor has Pscorp sought at any point to gain consensus for his POV edits. When every edit by a person deals with a specific topic, it is fair on my part to describe that editor as SPA, as far as I know. The Misplaced Pages policy for NPOV is not negotiable, nor is violation of the bright line rule - which Pscorp has breached (4RR in 20 hours breaks the bright line by any standards). Last I checked, the 3RR warning is given at the 3RR point - which I did. I would also note that I opened multiple avenues for discussion including 3O which is what I am supposed to do. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:29, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, prior wording was incomplete, and the new wording meet NPOV. I am also discussing, on talk page etc. I would also note that edits of user Collect are very rough, he usually simply deletes whole sentences instead of trying to improve the text. Pscorp19 (talk) 21:01, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Now I noticed that user Collect simply deleted (again) one of my edits (whole section), without any discussion. Pscorp19 (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

And the section in the HuffPo article (the edit you complain about) has scarcely an itoa of relevance to that article - and the claims you inserted multiple times ( and not deleted by me, and not deleted by me - amazingly enough, sticking in your "Daily Mail" story into other articles seems not be considered proper editing by anyone at all!) there had been deleted by everyone else in the past! Did you not notice that your edits seem to have a short half-life when they are so blatantly POV? Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

The sections at HuffPo and ABCNews were deleted by someone only because I did not find reliable sources, but when I will have the reliable (suitable for wikipedia) sources, I will add the sections again, they definitely should be there. Moreover, almost all of your edits which you tried to do in MailOnline article are not there, simply because your edits are blatantly POV. Next, it is only your opinion, that the section which you deleted is "scarcely an itoa".Pscorp19 (talk) 23:25, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

You made a direct accusation about me. I am glad you recognize that those who removed your POV edits on other pages did so properly. And you find to be a POV edit? Sheesh! Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

You first accused me and when I defend, you are crying. This is a joke. Pscorp19 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that this report be closed with no action. Both editors should be advised that they may be charged with long-term edit warring if this goes on much longer. They should both know how to use the discussion page. EdJohnston (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Asante90 reported by User:Heironymous Rowe (Result: 24h)

Page: Ancient Egyptian race controversy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Asante90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

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

And a 5th, after this report was filed:

• 5th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy#Robert Bauval "Black Genesis"

Comments:

The discussion over the inclusion of these statements on Bauval has been put in place on the talk page. . As you can see the people who have been reverting my contributions have yet to comment on the discussion created for this. Where is the dialogue? All I'm seeing are one line comments on the view history tab and an outright refusal to seriously discuss the issues that the editors have with the inclusion of this statement. Asante90 (talk) 19:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Blocked – 24h by User:Tide rolls. EdJohnston (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

User:TheEconomissst reported by User:Nixie9 (Result: )

Page: Carolina Herrera (fashion designer) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: TheEconomissst (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:
• admin DGG
• editor tbhotch

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

• Warned by DGG
• Warned by Nixie9

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

• DGG

Comments:

This user is advocating an extreme WP:POV regarding the essence of respecting european nobility and titles, and in doing so initially removed (repeatedly) well sourced references to First Ladies, cited by publications such as the New York Times, Forbes and USA Today, replacing with blog (or more often no) references to obscure hereditary nobles from the former Portugese monarchy, and their first and second husbands. Has had my POV and 3RR warnings and admin DGG's POV and 3RR warnings. Other editors have also attempted and failed to get through.User:Tbhotch Added repeated uncited nobility titles in both the article lead and body paragraphs, in bold face. User reverted an administrator's removal of their content. Attempts at Talk have resulted in lengthy sermons on the need for American recognition of european tradition of titles and respect of wealth, etc. Fully admitted POV bias. See User talk:Nixie9#Carolina_Herrera, User_talk:DGG#Carolina_Herrera. My own reversions of this user have been of unreferenced or poorly sourced BLP material, but I'll risk the friendly fire. This user should be blocked from this article.--Nixie9 (talk) 06:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Dear administrators,

HE - Nixie9 - is promoting this Edit warring. I even put the "from - to" about the tradition of the U.S. First Ladies, but he just wanna know about his personal culture, and ignores the European millennial culture, about the person personifying the title, as it is the case. We've references but he just want the ones that support what he think it is "correct". He's picking on me.

Regards,

--TheEconomissst (talk) 06:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Dear TheEconomissst - Now is your chance to support your case, the brief sentence above certainly won't convince anyone.--Nixie9 (talk) 06:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

That's an absurd what he - Nixie9 - is saying.

--TheEconomissst (talk) 06:38, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

He's annoying you all with nonsense things, and sometimes even lying to be "benefited".

--TheEconomissst (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I would say that he deserves to be blocked. I've being very very flexible. I put about the First Ladies, I show him about all the news about the Duchess of Cadaval and her dress by Carolina Herrera (Talk:Carolina Herrera (fashion designer)

The important is that her actual name is Carolina Herrera. But she was born as María Carolina Josefina Pacanins Niño, so why she's Carolina Herrera? Because she married to Don Reinaldo Herrera Guevara, The 5th Marquess of Torre Casa. And, as in Europe the important after she was titles is the title, that's an European millennial tradition, 'cause now she personifies the title, she's, above all, Your Excellency The Marquise consort of Torre Casa (look, for example, Wallis Simpson, The Duchess of Windsor. In all her luggage she just put The Duchess of Windsor, and that how all the European nobility works. And we've lots of sources/references that corroborate it. But all the references he - Nixie9 - say that are insufficient. Oh, please! This man is picking on me. I kept the two First Ladies and put the "from-to" to indicate a tradition, as he wanted. About the Doña, that's an European millennial tradition, and she don't need to be titled officially as a Doña, as it is common to the Spanish, Portuguese and Italian nobilities. And we're talking about a Spanish aristocrat. The whole article Don (honorific) express this.

Lastly, I really don't know what this guy drinks, or which medication - maybe dr - he utilizes. That's an absurd what he's saying.

--TheEconomissst (talk) 07:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:99.129.112.89 reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: )

Page: Contemporary Christian music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 99.129.112.89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: - some of the material was kept. The version by History2007 is acceptable.

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: The vast bulk of the talk page, some of which was moved from the anon's talk page, is the dispute resolution.

Comments:
I have tried to explain Misplaced Pages policies to anon, but the anon has made so many edits on different pages that I watch that general comments can easily be confused, which is what the first comments appear to have been.

I forgot to mention that the anon should also be reminded about WP:NPA again: Comment on content, not on the contributor. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring