Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 17:10, 10 October 2014

• 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:Dark Liberty reported by User:RGloucester (Result: Blocked)

Page

2014 Hong Kong protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dark Liberty (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:07, 7 October 2014 (UTC) "We would rather you Annihilate us than destroy our faith in God with your false admiration and your double-standard Lies. you are not one in favor of freedom and Liberty, and your rhetoric fools no one."
2. 01:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC) "unsourced speculation, Annulment of weasel content towards that of encyclopedic standards. to other editors and administrators: compare selected revisions, revert if necessary."
3. 01:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC) "restored to latest revision by OhConfucius. to other editors: take note of the changes in content for reference."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 01:36, 7 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on 2014 Hong Kong protests. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

This user has not strictly broken the WP:3RR yet (he's at his third revert), however, his behaviour shows clear battleground tendencies, and his edit summaries are inflammatory. What's more, he only just came out of a block for the exact same behaviour on the exact same article. He also deleted my warning, and continued to remove even more content from the article. I believe that the editor has not learned anything from his prior block, has shown no sign of stopping this behaviour, and hence should be blocked. RGloucester — ☎ 02:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I issued the last block of User:Dark Liberty. It appears that he is a very dedicated POV-warrior and it's unclear if anything short of an indef block will get him to stop. As you can see from the above edit summaries (especially the first one) WP:BATTLE motivates him. The three listed reverts took out between 2,000 and 5,000 bytes of content each time. EdJohnston (talk) 15:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

He is still at it. Revert warring and deleted 17,000 bytes of content in one edit today. He's also doing a lot of trolling on the talk page. One post titled "Crimes Against Humanity" accuses me of making "1000+" edits on the 2014 Hong Kong protests and being part of a massive conspiracy and "instructing" other editors. In reality, I have edited the page 10-20 times (mainly minor edits) and have never been in contact with my supposed co-conspirators aside from minor discussion on that particular talk page. He's probably targeted me because I called him out when he blanked one paragraph eight times in ~24 hours. Just being disruptive for the sake of it, making numerous untrue accusations, for example that others are indiscriminately blanking sections of the article (the only one doing that is him) and that triads shouldn't be mentioned in the article because "triads have not existed in Hong Kong since the 90s" Citobun (talk) 12:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Indef for long-term edit warring, POV-pushing and battleground editing. Just now (while this report was open) he removed 17,000 bytes in one edit. It's unlikely that this editor will ever accept consensus. EdJohnston (talk) 13:55, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru reported by User:LesVegas (Result: )

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

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. and this reverted
2. and these reverted
3. and this reverted
4. and this reverted
5. and this reverted
6. and this reverted

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: user warned here but knows not to edit war as he has been blocked multiple times for edit warring already

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I responded to his protestations on the talk page after I tried resolving this conflict by modifying my edits to address his concerns, such as in this edit

Comments:

On 13:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC) User:Kww wrote on the acupuncture talk page "These studies are of the brain's reactions to the body being poked with sharp things. They don't lay the foundation for the effectiveness of acupuncture, just that the brain does, indeed, react to the body being poked with a sharp object. I'm not aware of anyone that denies that." See Talk:Acupuncture#Acupuncture_and_the_brain. There is disagreement with using these sources that are about brain activity.

There is specific information about mechanism of action for acupuncture. "Evidence suggests that acupuncture generates a sequence of events that include the release of endogenous opioid-like substances that modulate pain signals within the central nervous system." See Acupuncture#Scientific_view_on_TCM_theory.

See Talk:Acupuncture#Duplication. The first sentence for Acupuncture#Adverse events says "Acupuncture is generally safe when administered by an experienced, appropriately trained practitioner using clean technique and sterile single use needles." I removed repetitive text. I did not violate 3RR. User:LesVegas is well aware the sanctions and is clearly editing against consensus. Milliongoldcoinpoint also made a fake 3RR report against another editor for the acupuncture article. Milliongoldcoinpoint was a confirmed sock. I think User:LesVegas is another sock account. The behaviour and POV is the same. QuackGuru (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

First off, KWW posted on a different section "Acupuncture and the Brain". The sources I was adding in were in a different section "Mechanism of Acupuncture." Even still, A1Candidate supported these sources, and I did as well, so I hardly see how I am editing against any sort of consensus. Additionally, these were reliable sources and you only contended them on the basis of the opioid mechanism being a possible duplication. I addressed your concern in this edit by modifying the statement to say, "In addition to opioid peptides.." and adding additional material which was not duplication. QuackGuru, it's not helpful to throw out accusations that I'm a sock puppet because we disagree about some things and I reported you for 8 friggin reverts! Listen, I wasn't even going to report this, but I counted and your reverts were at 8! 6! That shows a tremendous lack of respect for me and for Misplaced Pages's community standards. LesVegas (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that looks like legitimate reversion of persistent attempts to interject unreliably sourced material and delete reliably sourced material to the article by User:LasVegas. QuackGuru was exceedingly polite and generous in explaining each reversion. His patience is admirable. Furthermore, this complaint is retaliatory because QuackGuru had just warned LasVegas about edit-warring here ], and made no further edits to the article, unlike Las Vegas, who continued to edit until I reverted him. Looks like a classic case of boomerang. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 04:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

You probably didn't notice this because QuackGuru is in the habit of deleting everything off his talk page, but I sent him a warning before he sent me one. If anything, his behavior is kinda boomerangish. And the reliability of the sourcing was never under contention, and the sourcing was systematic reviews, and I added different material backed up by different reviews which you removed as well. Dominus, you reverted a reliable source as well, I'm curious why? In addition to violating the 3RR, QuackGuru also was removing reliably sourced material. That's very disruptive. I knew he went over the 3RR, but I didn't want to make this into a big ordeal and wasn't going to report it. Why burn a bridge with a fellow editor? Then I counted the reverts, and there were 8 of them! Seriously, that shows tremendous disrespect for myself and for Misplaced Pages's rules. 8 reverts is literally two 3RR violations. LesVegas (talk) 14:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Even if a group of consecutive edits contains more than one revert, it can only be counted as one revert. For this reason, LesVegas is counting incorrectly, and the 8 edits s/he listed only amount to three reverts. Cardamon (talk) 06:44, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I admit it gets a bit confusing because these weren't just one single edit reverted 8 times 6 times. They were unique edits. I added content. QuackGuru reverted, saying why in the edit summary. I tweaked that content taking his POV into consideration, he reverted that. And some edits just had a source, some with a tag on the source that QuackGuru added between me adding the source and QuackGuru reverting it, some were reversions of an edit, and then after I tweaked the edit to encompass QuackGuru's feedback in the edit summary, he reverted the new one as well. Yeah, it's complex. But I counted and recounted before I ever even filed this report and there are no less than 8 reverts. Like I said, I wasn't trigger happy and didn't want to even report this, but when I saw how many reverts there were I frankly had no choice. If there is any additional confusion, whatsoever, I am happy to provide any additional diffs or explanations. Thanks! LesVegas (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Go to wp:3rr and find the second sentence in the red box. It will read "An edit or a series of consecutive edits that undoes other editors' actions—whether in whole or in part—counts as a revert." The eight edits you cited come from three series of edits by QG; therefore they count as three reverts. Cardamon (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, it appears we were both right. When I went through the edits to put them side by side with the edits being reverted, there were a couple of combinations. It wasn't 3, but it wasn't 8 either. It was difficult to discern because they aren't clearly labeled as reverts in the edit summary which causes confusion, but hopefully they're all clear now! Peace! LesVegas (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought filing this report would put a stop to QuackGuru's edit warring and disruptive behavior for awhile at least, but unfortunately his behavior persists. During a recent discussion on a Community Ban for QuackGuru, several editors noted he is only on good behavior when he knows he's being watched. They also discussed the disruptiveness of him deleting everything off his talk page. While Misplaced Pages allows you to do nearly anything with your own talk page, many editors noted QuackGuru's only purpose for archiving everything seems to be an attempt to fly under the radar and not attract attention to constant edit warring and battleground tendencies. Just now, QuackGuru was warned on his talk page for sneakily using his edit summary to make it seem like he was self-correcting his own work, when in fact he clearly reverted another user. This occurred while his 3RR violation is pending, knowing he is being watched. From my time dealing with this editor, I've witnessed this sort of disruptive behavior many times and am concerned he won't ever learn his lesson. LesVegas (talk) 00:11, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I deleted part of my own comment on the talk page and I again removed part of my original comment. If you think I am wrong then why you didn't undo my edit? Don't try to create a distraction here. Let's get back on topic.

This edit was duplication. See diff.

This edit was strange information about brain activity

This edit was strange information about brain activity again. See diff.

This edit was misplaced text about the TCM view on yin and yang. It was not the scientific view on the TCM theory. I did compromise, however, and added information about the yin-yang thing to the appropriate section.

You claimed it was confusing. No, it isn't. You made a fake 3RR report and you have showed your true intentions. You have not withdrawn your fake 3RR report because you want me banned so you can rewrite the article. I think it is time for the WP:BOOMERANG effect. QuackGuru (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Articles always need rewriting, and I would love you to be part of it. But yes, I do seriously question if you can comply with the community's rules. When I began editing on this article, I was nothing but nice from the outset and have always tried to reach a compromise with you, but I'm afraid you almost constantly insist on creating a war zone, disrupting, and breaking the rules. You began talk page stalking me, trying to create a wall of shame, then were persistently disruptive in editing. How am I supposed to feel about you, QuackGuru? Anywhoo, I won't reply any more as this has already taken too much of everyone's time, but if anyone else needs more clear or better diffs to make a decision, I'm willing to provide them. Peace! LesVegas (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

You still have not withdrawn your fake 3RR report and now you have accused me of "talk page stalking" without supporting evidence. QuackGuru (talk) 01:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:LesVegas is changing his comment after I made a comment. The link provided by LesVegas shows he was using the offensive B(Redacted) word. Please withdraw your fake 3RR report and strike your false claim of "trying to create a wall of shame". QuackGuru (talk) 02:04, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Alifazal reported by User:172.56.7.175 (Result:Semi)

Page: Marine Services Company Limited (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alifazal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has edit warred repeatedly about several different aspects of this article since 24 September 2014. I will deal with each in turn.

(1) Location of the "profile" reference in the History section of the article:

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts (from oldest to newest):

(2) Whether serial commas should be used:

The first introduction of serial commas that Alifazal did not like:

Diffs of the user's reverts for the purpose of eliminating serial commas (from oldest to newest):

(3) Description of the ownership of this company:

The edit providing the description that Alifazal did not like:

Diffs of the user's reverts for keeping his version of the description (from oldest to newest):

(4) Whether the company has liaison offices or merely branch offices headed by liaison officers:

The edit clarifying that these are branch offices headed by liaison officers, which Alifazal did not like:

Diffs of the user's reverts for keeping his concept of "liaison offices":

(5) Whether "per cent" or "percent" should be used:

The edit introducing "percent", which User:Alifazal:Alifazal did not like:

Diffs of the user's reverts to keep the usage of "per cent":

(6) The number of people killed in the capsizing of the ferry "Bukoba" in 1996:

The edit supporting a 2012 source claiming that as many as 1,000 people died, which User:Alifazal:Alifazal did not like:

Diffs of the user's reverts to keep his version of the death toll:

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning: (1) The warnings he has not deleted: (2) The latest warning that he deleted:

Comments:

Alifazal has a disturbing and disruptive history of trying to own articles he edits and using incivility and intimidation to dissuade others from editing in ways he disagrees with. For example, refer to this:

Thank you. 172.56.7.175 (talk) 04:50, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to put this for your consideration: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/AfricaTanz. This IP user has been wikihounding me. I have since suspected that it is none other than User:AfricaTanz; who was blocked last year. The user itself has been editing from a multiple range of IPs. It literally kept on following my edits until i initiated an SPI that it then started editing the Godfrey Mwakikagile article. The SPI was closed yesterday and some of the pages have since been under semi-protection; which is what i suspect this user is not happy with. You still haven't answered my question as to whether you are indeed affiliated with the blocked User:AfricaTanz? Ali Fazal (talk) 05:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

It now appears that an IP has questioned User:Berean Hunter's decision on the article's semi-protection. A user from a multiple IP range has been edit warring on my talkpage: 1, 2, 3, and 4. A related IP had also been warned by User:Malik Shabazz. Ali Fazal (talk) 12:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: The article Marine Services Company Limited has been semiprotected for a month by User:Berean Hunter due to socking by User:AfricaTanz. EdJohnston (talk) 16:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has. But the edit warring by Alifazal has continued, even after the semiprotection. The diffs are provided above. 172.56.6.67 (talk) 19:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Alifazal wasn't the problem. Block-evading socks was. That's been stopped. the panda ₯’ 21:37, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no proof of socking other than Alifazal's constant harping and entirely unsubstantiated allegations about it. Even the SPI showed nothing. Alifazal has a habit of accusing every person who disagrees with him of socking or having Conflicts of Interest. What do you say on your user page? Something about STFU about socking. 172.56.38.148 (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

See WP:DUCK the panda ɛˢˡ” 12:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:Wgw2024 (Result: No action)

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

This user has reverted the section Criticism and Apologetics on the article Buddhism three times in the past 24 hours, in spite of efforts made to address his criticisms. 15:13, 7 October 2014‎ User:Wgw2024

• Comment Like 35 hours before, I made a huge edit(2900 bytes) on this article. I notified on talk page too. Talk:Buddhism#Removed_Criticism_subsection. Other user reverted my edit, and soon he made almost same change to this article after recognizing why I had made that change. Other two users collaborated, they also agreed with the current version., We moved ahead!

Today I am observing that this user would try to recover the same content, that had been removed after consensus. He did it once again. So far, as per above guidelines, you have to make 3 reverts or change pointed content for 3 times during the edit conflict with other user under 24 hours. I have made 2 reverts in last 34 hours. Bladesmulti (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment Two reverts indeed. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:08, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Wgw2004 has stated in an edit summary: "I am suspending my charge of edit-warring against BladesMulti; since that time he has participated in constructive dialogue and I believe he may have miscalculated the number of reversions he actually made, and that it was an honest mistake on his part." EdJohnston (talk) 15:27, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action, since User:Wgw2024 wants to withdraw the report. Use the talk page to get consensus about the Criticism section. It does not look good that both parties reverted the Criticism section *twice* on 7 October. The first revert would be understandable. The second revert, not so much. If you can't reach agreement, see WP:DR for some options to consider. EdJohnston (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jp5472 reported by User:Ilovetopaint (Result: Blocked)

Page: God Only Knows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jp5472 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Tried to get him to Talk:God Only Knows#Lovin' Spoonful inspiration to no success.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:GraniteSand reported by User:Legacypac (Result: No action )

Page:

User being reported:User:GraniteSand

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts: All within a few hours

1. blanking talk page warning about Syrian Civil War User:PBS warning not to keep trying to change the article title to Islamic State
2. Within hours of blanking the warning he promises to do exactly what PBS warned him not to do-start another disruptive RfC. And he was fully aware of the consensus to use ISIL reached on page noted in the thread and various other closed discussions but then
3. reverts a cleanup edit of mine 16 minutes after his statements disagreeing with the other editors directly below my comment citing consensus. Maybe targeting my edit to make his point?

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: was warned under Syria Civil War sanctions by User:PBS

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: see links above to talk page

Comments:

With some heavy editing to cleanup various ISIL articles I maybe over one revert myself (not vs anyone specifically) technically, depending on how you define a revert. I've not edit warred with the user. I have not tried to revert his revert, but would welcome anyone else to do that. I'm not requesting any specific action - leave that to reviewing Admin. Just not interested in continued debate or disruption.Thanks Legacypac (talk) 07:18, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is probably the most spurious and malformed ANI compliant I've seen in years. If any adjudicating editors have any questions of me feel free to ask here or on my talk page. GraniteSand (talk) 07:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have closed this as "No action". user:GraniteSand is now topic banned for thee months from editing in this area (see Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Syrian Civil War and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant#2014) -- PBS (talk) 10:57, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Legacypac reported by User:Supreme Deliciousness (Result: No action, self-revert)

Page: Siege of Kobanê (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Legacypac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1. (POV tag removed 2014-10-08 02:48:06 by Legacypac)
2. (POV tag removed 2014-10-08 03:02:12 again by Legacypac)

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Syrian civil war articles are under a 1rr:. Legacypac is fully aware of the rules as he told me himself: despite that it was him that did two quick reverts (not me). I gave him time to self revert: he has not done so. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:49, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Response: The first edit was not a revert, the second was my 1RR on the article, as I understand the rules. I could not quickly find who added the original POV tag, but if it was User:Supreme Deliciousness|Supreme Deliciousness]] shame on him because 6 to 0 other editors User:Greyshark09, User:Catlemur, User:Kudzu1, User:EkoGraf, User:RGloucester and myself on the talk page agreed that the article name is appropriate. A huge box at the top casting doubt over the reliability of the article and its contents does not help the readers on a current event grabbing world wide headlines. He did not discuss adding the tag, any specific proposal for making the article more NPOV as called for in WP:NPOV and WP:NPOVD, make edits to reduce the alleged POV, or discuss removal of the tag to talk as I suggested 6 times:

• in this edit summary
• in this edit summary
• on his talk page here
• on my talk page twice here
• on the page talk page Talk:Siege_of_Kobanê

Only response to discuss was a threat of this report (on my talk page) and this report.

Legacypac (talk) 19:56, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

In my humble opinion User:Supreme Deliciousness pretty much started a page move war for no reason and initially refused to even discuss his actions.--Catlemur (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The POV tag was originally added here (at 2014-10-07 01:53:06) by Supreme Deliciousness. His addition of the tag for the first time is not a revert. But both of the diffs listed above are reverts. In my opinion User:Legacypac should undo his removal of the POV tag to avoid a block for 1RR violation. You can still argue that the tag isn't appropriate, but you can't remove it twice in 24 hours by yourself. EdJohnston (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok I appreciate your insight Admin User:EdJohnston I'll go revert my second deletion of the tag. Cheers Legacypac (talk) 21:52, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd just note that, in addition to this 1RR pointed out by Supreme Deliciousness, Legacypac has a long and colorful history of making aggressive, unilateral edits as detailed in this ANI. I'm glad he's reverting this one, though. I guess everyone deserves a ninth chance. Until the next one (probably tomorrow) ... DocumentError (talk) 00:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I no longer engage in discussions with or about the editor immediately above me. He knows this. Legacypac (talk) 00:51, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that Legacypac has previously communicated to me that he no longer engages in discussions with or about me. I can also confirm that I have communicated to him that his personal policy does not alleviate his responsibility to seek consensus prior to making major page changes. DocumentError (talk) 02:46, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: No action taken because Legacypac agreed to revert his last change. EdJohnston (talk) 13:45, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Henery Copt reported by User:Shrike (Result: Blocked)

Page

Yom Kippur War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Henery Copt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 13:53, 8 October 2014 (UTC) "Stop removing the sources or you will face an Account Blocking Sanction from the page administrator. Re Read the page's administration warning and sanctions." revert of this
2. 03:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC) "Removal of too much sources and data, reread the page's warnings and sanctions" revert of this

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 14:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Yom Kippur War. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The article is under WP:1RR as part of WP:ARBPIA. I have asked the user to self revert. Shrike (talk) 14:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC) Also please look --Shrike (talk) 17:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – Indef as a sock, per the result of WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Dexterous B. EdJohnston (talk) 19:20, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

User:2601:5:D000:4E2:F47D:EFDF:BABB:C6A1 reported by User:Gaba p (Result: Blocked)

Page

Political activities of the Koch brothers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

2601:5:D000:4E2:F47D:EFDF:BABB:C6A1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 02:22, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "MotherJones (2013) article mistakes likely based on incorrect reading of Tampa Bay Times article (2011). Removed because of errors."
2. 01:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Teacher's website is more direct source than HuffPo article."
3. 01:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Fixed formatting on source"
4. Consecutive edits made from 01:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC) to 01:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 01:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Sorry, as someone who took the class, that is simply not true. Update with syllabus shortly."
   2. 01:38, 9 October 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 00:34, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Corrected section on Koch activities at FSU."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 02:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on Political activities of the Koch brothers. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Reversions also reverted other unchallenged corrections (the number of new faculty positions) that would have clarified the article in question. 2601:5:D000:4E2:F47D:EFDF:BABB:C6A1 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Blocked – 24 hours. EdJohnston (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:151.47.53.186 (who is presumably also User:151.47.22.228) reported by User:U3964057 (Result: Semi)

Page: Power (social and political) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Users being reported: 151.47.53.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 151.47.22.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the users' reverts:

Friendly notice about edit warring:
Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: and here as well.

Polite request for editor to engage on the talk page: (in the edit summary)

Comments:

Hi all, there seems to be a couple of IPs attached to the same user. However, if others think that I am being presumptuous then of course let me know. Cheers Andrew (talk) 11:20, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi again. It seems like this user is also using this IP: 151.19.55.136. I am not sure what the block situation should be, but my thought is that some semi-protection at Power (social and political) might be called for. Maybe also at Power politics. Cheers Andrew (talk) 04:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Result: Semiprotected Power (social and political) and Power politics. An IP-hopper is warring to add a book by Giovanni Bianco to articles. If this continues a range block might be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 12:50, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:A4ay reported by User:mrehanms (Result: )

Page: Yesudas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: A4ay (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

Edits only related to one person, appears to be social media manager trying to avoid inclusion of negative news and controversies. Mrehanms (talk) 20:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

User:2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED reported by User:Alhanuty (Result: )

Page: Battle of Aleppo (2012–present) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

User 2602:30A:C01B:89F0:4C1F:A767:8E14:8CED has clearly broken the 1RR on the Article,by reverting twice,and and I tried to explain to him that Al-Masdar is a pro-government source biased towards the government and editors agree on this issue and i brought him proof of that,but he insisted on reverting me.Alhanuty (talk) 03:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:SimMoonXP reported by User:NeilN (Result: indef)

Page

Thomas Guide (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

SimMoonXP (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 03:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 627500745 by NE2 (talk) revert against to NE2!"
2. 05:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 629012716 by Vanamonde93 (talk) I use GPS for deep research which contains into the Misplaced Pages.com. Thanks! NO need to delete the entries! :)"
3. 05:56, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "As is!"
4. 06:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "real info based by GPS!"

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 05:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Thomas Guide. (TW)"
2. 06:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "note"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Might I add that this user has gone around blanking the talk page of most users who have reverted him, which IMO raises this from ignorance of 3RR to thoroughly and deliberately disruptive behavior. Vanamonde93 (talk) 06:18, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Favonian (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Block made indefinite in view of previous track record and the aggressive blanking of other editors' talk pages. See also this prompt block evasion. Favonian (talk) 06:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Grammophone reported by User:NatGertler (Result: )

Page

Galerie Gmurzynska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Grammophone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 12:08, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "Removed advertising / self-serving and boastful content. Restored sourced history. Previous revision sourcing not up to Misplaced Pages's standards."
2. Consecutive edits made from 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC) to 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
   1. 16:53, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628893515 by Art&Design3000 (talk)"
   2. 16:56, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628897942 by Art&Design3000 (talk) Material violates WP:SELFPUB and WP:BLPSPS (is self-published and self-serving)"
   3. 17:06, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Undid revision 628894936 by Art&Design3000 (talk) Author does not understand the difference between primary and secondary sources. Seeks to repress unfavourable history."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Galerie Gmurzynska. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

Part of a war between this user and Art&Design3000 (talk · contribs), one with a very negative, legal-case-oriented take on subject, one with a very promo one. Please see full history - may never quite break 3RR, but edit war nonetheless. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Art&Design3000 reported by User:NatGertler (Result: )

Page

Galerie Gmurzynska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Art&Design3000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 22:16, 9 October 2014 (UTC) ""
2. 07:31, 9 October 2014 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 22:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Edit warring on Galerie Gmurzynska. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 17:05, 9 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Edit warring */ new section"

Comments:

I believe that this IP edit, a few minutes before a response to the edit warring warning, is likely also this user, putting it after the warning. Not hitting 3RR, but clear edit warring with Grammophone (talk · contribs) over the course of the week, with such reverts as this attributed to user and this and this to IPs. Nat Gertler (talk) 13:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:NeilN reported by User:FelixRosch (Result: No violation)

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

Previous version reverted to: This report is of long-term edit warring currently shown by sequential reverts on the Talk page for Artificial Intelligence without explanation.

(Please note that this report is made on the basis on long-term edit warring which recognizes edit warring outside of conventional and sequential 4 reverts following the policy quotation "although edit warring has no such strict rule.)

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

User:NeilN has declined all Talk participation in preference for automatic posting of Standard Notice without elaboration.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Several months ago prior to summer another editor had warned me of User:NeilN as being associated with his edit friend as involved in baiting and edit warring with new editors for the purposes of having them blocked or reprimanded here . At that time, I accepted the advice to drop the matter not knowing that the baiting and edit warring by User:NeilN would become long term and persistent. The baiting and edit warring by User:NeilN has been protracted over at least 3 separate Misplaced Pages pages and for several months. The edit baiting and edit warring has been apparently associated with nothing more than the private gain NeilN appears to get from baiting new editors for the purposes of getting them reprimanded or blocked. The three pages demonstrating this counterproductive and maladjusted edit behavior by User:NeilN occurred on the three (3) articles for Artificial intelligence, Ukraine, and Figure skating at the 2014 Winter Olympics – Ladies' singles, as baiting and edit warring against my edits.

In the case or Artificial intelligence, the Talk page of the article has been troubled with a number of poorly formed RfCs, where one editor appears to wish to place material not adequately covered in the main body of the article into the Lede of the article. NeilN had nothing to do with the discussion of the page but nonetheless began multiple reverts without explaining any of his edits on the Talk page there against Misplaced Pages policy which asks editors to post their reasons for reverts on Talk. To further inflame the matter, User:NeilN then went straight to posting an automatic edit warring message, again apparently for no other reason than to bait another editor. This is done by NeilN, an otherwise experienced editor, with all the appearance of following Misplaced Pages rules superficially when examined as an isolated case. My hope is that by collecting the edit baiting and edit warring for several different pages, however, that this appearance of following Misplaced Pages rules is merely superficial and that the private gain or pleasure which User:NeilN appears to get from baiting and edit warring against new editors is really part of larger pattern of maladapted editing practices which are counter-productive to collaborative editing and unwelcoming to new editors against Misplaced Pages policy.

The maladapted baiting and edit warring by NeilN was more counter-productive and aggressive at the page for Ukraine where his conduct resulted in a protracted and chilling edit environment for all editors trying to update the current civil war issues taking place there. After my leaving the page temporarily for the summer, I discovered that the hostile and counter-productive atmosphere of intimidation by NeilN had frozen the editing of the page to the point of no updates at all to the section after the New president election of Poroshenko from last Spring (four months ago) for the entire summer. I then posted at least one edit to update this section of the page for Ukraine after its neglect for the entire summer (with Talk page additions and explanation) following the atmosphere of intimidation of that Page which had been fostered and associated with User:NeilN and his history of baiting and edit warring against new editors for his private purposes. User NeilN has also expressed contempt for the opinion of admin User:Fuzheado (Andrew Lih, the author of a famous book on Misplaced Pages) and the ability of an on-line encyclopedia to keep up with geopolitical events in ways which were previously unavailable in print encyclopedias. I expressed support for Andrew Lih, but was further ridiculed by User:NeilN for my support of Andrew Lih on this diff . User:NeilN appeared to express that the only criteria to satisfy him would be the news of "millions" of dead people in the Ukraine which would satisfy his requirement for adequate notability in his view of Misplaced Pages on this diff .

This pattern of behavior again repeated itself another time at the Talk page for the "2014 Olympics Ladies Figure Skating" page here , where once again the pattern of baiting and edit warring was repeated by User:NeilN for his personal purposes. The brief history of the discussion was that of distinguishing and separating a paparazzi controversy from an Official controversy which a separate editor does not appear to be able to grasp, and the article page was beginning to resemble a fan site of unofficial opinions quoted from the rich and famous which in the end had nothing to do with the Official judging of Gold medals at the 2014 Olympics. Although unrelated to the discussion, User:NeilN again felt it incumbent upon himself to use the opportunity for baiting and edit warring in the pursuit of his version of counter-productive edit warring.

At this point, my own position was that he would simply tire of his maladapted baiting and edit warring practices, and perhaps with time adjust his unproductive and unwelcoming edit behavior normally seen as destructive to the purposes of collaborative editing at Misplaced Pages. However, his maladapted behavior appears to be endemic to his long-term conduct, and his history appears to show an unwillingness to adjust his desire to bait and edit war with new editors on a continuing basis. Edit baiting/bullying is usually read as WP:Harrassment at first reading, and when coupled with his long standing and repeated desire for WP:Edit-warring, I am requesting that this matter be reviewed by a more experienced editor to evaluate the matter. User:NeilN has accumulated a number of Misplaced Pages privileges, and appears to seek further privileges to expand his domain over other new editors. The length of this report I have significantly shortened because relating all of the edit baiting and edit warring by User:NeilN would require too much space. Could some instructions or other measures be left for User:NeilN to somehow curtail his long-term proclivity for baiting and edit warring with new editors. FelixRosch (talk) 16:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

This is at least the third malformed report by FelixRosch (diffs supplied upon request). Also, unsurprisingly, no notification. In all cases above my edits were supported by other experienced editors. If an admin would like more detail from me, please ask. --NeilN 16:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• No violation. The only recent history I see of reverts is on the talk page of Artificial intelligence, and there were only two, as well as two by FelixRosch. I also looked at the article itself and the other two articles and their talk pages, and anything there was incredibly stale. Felix, don't toss around personal accusations on this board. If you want to accuse another editor of a long-term pattern of misconduct, then go to WP:ANI or start an RfC/U. You might, though, consider the possibiility of WP:BOOMERANG, though, before you go any further. You've been editing using this account for about a year and have very few edits during that time, and even fewer to article space. I'm not sure what your problem is except you apparently suspect there's a conspiracy afoot.--Bbb23 (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Jimjilin reported by User:Shrike (Result: )

Page

David Ben-Gurion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Jimjilin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 14:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "I quoted Morris directly." rv of this edit
2. 00:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "Counterpunch is a great source." rv of this edit

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 16:34, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "Warning: Violating the three-revert rule on David Ben-Gurion. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

1. 10:26, 10 October 2014 (UTC) "/* Interview with morris */ new section"

Comments:

The article is part of WP:ARBPIA and under WP:1RR I proposed that user will self revert Shrike (talk) 16:38, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring