Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:01, 6 January 2015

• 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:86.130.140.194 reported by User:Charlesdrakew (Result: Blocked)

Page

Vatican City (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

4. 20:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC) ""
5. 23:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. Edit warring warning
2. 23:26, 31 December 2014 (UTC) "Final warning notice on Avignon Papacy. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Many more reverts have been made over a series of Vatican related pages. Has been invited to discuss with no effect. Charles (talk) 09:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

The same editor's edit-warring is continuing. See 25 December 2014 – 4 January 2015}. Esoglou (talk) 06:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And again, five more times! Esoglou (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Blocked – 48 hours. Editor is busy changing styles contrary to WP:MOS and reverts against anyone who disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz reported by User:Legacypac (Result: )

Page: Boko Haram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Signedzzz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
User being reported: Lipsquid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

9. revert 5 made while or after the report was filed

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Signedzzz warning on Lipsquid's talk. Signedzzz's 3RR report above. Since Signedzzz just warned and filed a 3RR which was declined as no violation, it seems pretty hypocritical to promptly go over 3RR himself on the point. Not the first edit war between them. Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: and elsewhere.

Comments:I'm mainly watching the article page, not edit warring here. No opinion on the merits of one version vs the other.

Yes, I accidentally went over 3RR, so as to specifically direct the user to discuss on talk per BRD. After filing the detailed request last night, so as to avoid this, which I knew was going to happen, I forgot to count my reverts for last 24 hours, assuming that I was still safe. Last night when I filed my report I was on 2 and he was on 3. Now I am on 4 and he is on 5. I should have stopped when I was on 3 and he was on 4. I apologise for my mistake. zzz (talk) 18:43, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

At least I didn't have to fill in this report again, which took me hours last night. zzz (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

When I filed the report both editors were at 4 (8 reverts total), but now Lipsquid's gone to 5, so I've updated. Suggest an RfC as this is a fairly high profile article with many involved editors. Legacypac (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I've looked at the article and the source in detail around the disputed edit and reported my findings. My assessment is that Lipsquid's edit is quite justified and that Signedzzz is following WP:OWN and not the RS's by reverting. I also note that going back at least a few weeks Signedzzz has been pushing a similar point on another part of the article, reflecting a failure to follow sources. Legacypac (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Legacypac, you say above that I am "hypocritical" and that I am "pushing" a "similar point" in some other part of the article. These accusations are not relevant here. Please clarify this one point:

• Which RS's am I not following in the disputed paragraph (which cited only one ref, cited in my report above)? zzz (talk) 05:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

missed a word. Possessive not plural. the RS's information. Legacypac (talk) 06:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh you missed a word. So, which piece of information in the paragraph is not in the source? zzz (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The info and quote is in the source, but it was placed out of context in a way that is potentially misleading to the reader. It is off topic to the Boko Haram article. Legacypac (talk) 06:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So a couple of sentences to describe the main political group representing the interests of northern Nigeria, who have a military and intelligence capability, and are suspected of involvement in sectarian riots, is misleading and off-topic in the background section of the Boko Haram article, and must be deleted. Is that what you are claiming? zzz (talk) 06:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• The thing is, if you're right, why was the information in the source? Is the source misleading and off-topic? Do you have a source for that? zzz (talk) 06:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
• "It was placed out of context" - how do you come to think that? The source was an article about the background of Boko Haram. The context it was placed in was the background section of the Misplaced Pages article. Please explain how this is "out of context". zzz (talk) 06:49, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you've now edited the section in the article to remove the information you find to be misleading and off-topic, and accused me of various things including not following the source(s), please explain your reasoning. zzz (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• And, briefly, what "similar point" have I been "pushing" in another section of the article? zzz (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Since you have accused me of hypocrisy, incompetence and falsifying sources, please explain. zzz (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not edited the article recently except a one letter typo. Everything else is explained above. If you wish to have a content despite take that to the article talk. Legacypac (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You explained what exactly? What "similar point" have I been "pushing" in another section of the article, for example? zzz (talk) 08:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You've weighed in on the article talk page agreeing with everything User:Lipsquid says (of course), but it's got nothing to do with the article. zzz (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I looked at both editors versions and the source, then at your arguments and found my assessment is pretty close to Lipsquid's assessment. I just reported my findings to the 3RR report I started after I reviewed everything. Now please stop with the nattering here. Legacypac (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Lipsquid's assessment: "the word 'Boko Haram' is not in the reference you cited." zzz (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm convinced this editor can't read english. I said assessment, I did not say I agree with every word in their comments. Now stop the harassment please. Legacypac (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Spshu reported by User:71.213.12.5 (Result: Filer blocked)

Page: One Magnificent Morning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Spshu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Diffs of the user's reverts:

1 2 3

So obviously this doesn't break 3RR, but it's still a back-and-forth that constitutes non-3RR edit-warring. Remember, for something like this to not count as edit-warring, he'd have to have been reverting vandalism or work that a banned user had managed to come around the wall to place. I quote the ANI as a reminder: "Reverting vandalism and banned users is not edit warring; at the same time, content disputes, even egregious point of view edits and other good-faith changes do not constitute vandalism." Therefore, since Ttll213's edits are neither vandalism nor edits from a banned user, that means that spshu's reverts are still edit-warring.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

No, spshu has not tried to resolve this with Ttll213 in the talk page. This is another sign of his edit-warring, because he has not tried to follow B/R/D first.

• Note. This is complicated. The IP is a sock of User:IDriveAStickShift. They've used other IPs before to edit this article. The user is retaliating against User:Spshu because in the edit war between IDrive and Spshu earlier, I blocked IDrive but not Spshu. Therefore, I've blocked the IP for one week and blocked the named account for three months. I've also semi-protected the article for three weeks. All that said, there was an edit war between Spshu and Ttll213, not just by Spshu, and I'll let another administrator evaluate that aspect of the report, although I will watch to see if the edit war has stopped. Both editors have thus far reverted three times, although Spshu's third revert was outside the 24-hour window.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

bbb, you apparently have problems understanding the edit-warring policy:

1. To break 3RR, a person needs to have reverted not just 3 times, but 4 within the 24-hour period. 2. Not having reverted for a 4th time within a 24-hour period doesn't mean there's no edit war. The warring editor(s) should still be warned/blocked even if they didn't break 3RR but were still warring. 3. If you believe that Spshu and Ttll213 were both warring, then that means that when you thought IDrive was warring, Spshu was too.

You also have a problem understanding what sock-puppetry is and is not. You seem to think that once a person has edited with a named account, they are "no longer allowed to edit while not logged in," and so editing while not being logged in is suddenly now "sock-puppetry," according to you. But editing while not logged in, by itself, is not a breakage of Wiki policy that amounts to socking.

You also are only assuming that IDrive and the IP were one and the same, but you haven't confirmed any proof of that. There has been no investigation of the two, such as on SPI or whatever. Besides, though, even if they are the same, you have not proven that there was more happening than merely editing while not being logged in, which is still allowed by Misplaced Pages.

Additionally, you are just guessing that there's been retaliation. You don't automatically know the mind of an editor, so you can't just say that. Someone really needs to have you reevaluated as an "administrator."

71.219.21.215 (talk) 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note I have blocked 71.219.21.215 for block evasion. Chillum 04:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Counter reporting of Ttll213

Page: One Magnificent Morning (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Ttll213

It is Ttll213 that is edit warring.

• Reverting to

1. 16:37, 5 January 2015
2. 17:52, 5 January 2015
3. 18:02, 5 January 2015
4. 18:08, 5 January 2015 & name calling on top of that

• Talk:One_Magnificent_Morning#Change_in_schedule - is were I attempted to talk to Ttll213 on top of requests in the edits that his edit should be sourced then responding to the odd source that he used as possible unreliable. Spshu (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• He was also warned by Bbb23 on his talk page the day before. Spshu (talk) 00:26, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:23.92.129.86 (also editing as User:Jfd998) reported by User:AndyTheGrump (Result: Semi, block)

Note: IP has apparently registered and is continuing edit warring as User:Jfd998 (reported by User:Dominus Vobisdu)

Page: Fine-tuned Universe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 23.92.129.86 (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: See talk page discussions: I think that the edit history and talk page discussions demonstrate that this IP has already been involved in discussions.

Comments:
The IP is removing sourced on-topic material on spurious grounds, and replacing it with entirely unsourced content. The recent history of the article suggests that a single contributor is behind a whole series of edits aimed at removing legitimate sourced content. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Update - the IP has now created an account, and has continued to edit-war: AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:43, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

That argument is ridiculous. AndyTheGrump prevents information with 'citations needed' from being removed barring legitimate links. I agree that the criticisms part of the intelligent design argument should stand and my edit was not right. However, I was totally right to remove the 'bubble universe' portion - two of the three paragraphs are unsourced, and the one quote that is sourced is not from a science journal even if it is passed off as such making it unreliable and misleading.

The one addition I made was to the proper section - intelligent design - and linked the article from whence the quote came while nothing the bias of the author who wrote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.92.129.86 (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP (now editing as User:Jfd998) is completely misrepresenting edits - note this unsourced edit, and this removal of sourced content. They also seem to think that their own unsourced opinions (describing sourced content as 'science fiction') is legitimate grounds for removal. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

And see where Jfd998 resorts to insults, rather than addressing the issues. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Result: User:Jfd998 blocked indef by User:JzG. Article semiprotected 3 days by User:Vsmith. EdJohnston (talk) 18:29, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:ThorpLove reported by User:Eman52 (Result: Declined)

I would like to report that User:ThorpLove has made roughly six false edits on the 2014-15 NFL playoffs. He appears to be convinced, despite explanations of the NFL playoff format, that the Panthers are playing the Seahawks. I would recommend to block the user for 24 hours (by the time he can edit again, the match ups will be finalized. Eman52 (talk) 04:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Acroterion (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Undue deletions

I would like to report ] making undue revisions to the Fine Tuned Universe page, deleting fleshed out explanations to the Design argument preventing a page with a full and thorough debate. Misplaced Pages wanted to improve the 'Misplaced Pages Creationism' section and having two sentences explaining the Design argument and 500 explaining the atheistic scientific argument is not balance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfd998 (talk • contribs) 05:11, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Declined – malformed report. Please use the "Click here to create a new report" link at the top of this page, which gives a template report, and provide complete diffs. Acroterion (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:WilliamThweatt reported by User:Ezhilarasan446 (Result: No violation)

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suryavarman_II&diff=640921875&oldid=640798481

Previous version reverted to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suryavarman_II&diff=640921875&oldid=595101556

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Suryavarman_II&diff=640921875&oldid=581925338

User talks

https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Ezhilarasan446#February 2014

Comments:

my edit reverting for Suryavarman_II. I gave some references on the page for suiryavarman is pallava king.I need proper answer from history researcher whether suriyavarman II is pallava orgin king or not.

No violation - It takes four reverts to break WP:3RR. Please take care not to break the formatting of the article with your changes. You have never used the article talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:PabloOsvaldo17 reported by User:RealDealBillMcNeal (Result: Blocked)

Page

Fernando Torres (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

PabloOsvaldo17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 15:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 15:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640949209 by RealDealBillMcNeal) Sorry have you not read what I've written I don't care what the original statement read that's no longer the case now look: http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/"
3. Consecutive edits made from 14:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) to 14:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
   1. 14:35, 4 January 2015 (UTC) "A.C. Milan have already signed Torres permanently from parent club Chelsea, otherwise he would not be moving to Atlético on loan from Milan! It's not a case of a two-year loan being cancelled half a season in and the loan club Milan giving permission..."
   2. 14:36, 4 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

The user was warned as to why he shouldn't make the change and continued to revert. RealDealBillMcNeal (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I see 3RR exactly from the both of you. Afronig (talk) 18:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 72 hours. Only the blocked editor violated WP:3RR.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bladesmulti reported by User:93.171.217.170 (Result: no violation)

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

Version from before the edit war started: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Marsh_Mokhtari&oldid=639733905

Diffs of the user's reverts:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: User talk page was enough, only one reverter.

Comments: Bladesmulti is persistently restoring a gimped version of the article; one without categories, without sources, and with significantly reduced amount of entirely unsourced content. Complete removal of all references is especially troubling as the article's a WP:BLP. Full page protection was requested, but after forum shopping, Bladesmulti convinced his admin buddy Courcelles to semi-protect the page, block the IP user who brought attention to Bladesmulti's disruptive editing, and remove a significant portion of the relevant page protection request. Bladesmulti's behavior was criticized in good faith by an uninvolved editor, but Bladesmulti simply deleted his comment describing it as "busybody behavior" in the edit summary . It's time to stop him, and restore the good version of the article.
93.171.217.170 (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The so-called good version of the article is a verbatim copyvio from imdb, written by an anonymous author and completely unreliable. Such copyright violations are exempt from 3RR. Δρ.Κ.  06:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

He didn't mention copyvios, did he? No. That he removed them was only through sheer luck, it was never his intention. And he removed categories and sources too, not just copyvios. Now we have a blp without sources. IMDb may not be the most reliable source out there, but it's better than nothing. And don't forget the other website on the list of references. Plus he made 4 reverts in 1 day. Yeah, he needs to be reminded not to edit disruptively. 93.171.217.170 (talk) 06:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Copy-vio indeed:

• Now since this show is entertaining already, I am writing here for future preference. These are obvious duck IP addresses. JJ and Dr.K, you both are aware of 94.210.203.230. 94.210.203.230 was recently blocked as a sock of Beh-nam and the recent investigation(still ongoing) has proven that range blocking is not going to be helpful as he has access to a large number of proxies. It is just behavioral evidence that would help, and tracking of every single proxy as shown in one of the link that was provided by Callanecc. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to the matter at hand. What do you have to say about your disruptive and unconstructive edit-warring? 104.41.3.167 (talk) 15:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• No violation. Bladesmulti has apparently been removing copyvios, good for him. Also, Bladesmulti was 3RR-warned by User:EoRdE6 (the warning linked to above) plus also by 217.12.214.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS); not by the IP posting this report. Are you either or both of those, 93.171.217.170? If you have an account, please use it, don't jump in and out. And no, sock concerns aren't irrelevant here, as they go to your credibility. Bishonen | talk 15:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC).

Blades is getting better and better! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Bladesmulti's increasing ability to get away with more and more disruptive editing (casting aspersions, edit warring, incivility, etc., all in above diffs) sure is a cause for celebration. No, not really. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Second opinion needed

This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.

There's more to Bladesmulti's disruption (see above) than what Bishonen dismissed as "removing copyvios"- second opinion from another admin is needed here as given Bladesmulti's documented history of forum shopping in this case, it's likely Bishonen was canvassed off-wiki to defend Bladesmulti. In such cases it's always better when 2 admins express their opinion instead of 1. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 15:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Three contributions, and then being able to state "Bladesmulti's increasing ability to get away with more and more disruptive editing", and know how to ask for a second opinion? I've made 27,000 edits, and I didn't even know that it wa spossible to ask for a second opinion. Quack quack! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Your incompetence doesn't justify Bladesmulti's disruption. Also, I requested help from an admin, not uncalled-for hostile comments from the peanut gallery. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 16:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

104~, you're flattering me! "The peanut gallery" - what a great term! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Additional request for admin help Please explain to Joshua Jonathan why requests for help shouldn't be answered in a hostile manner, why requests for admin help shouldn't be answered by non-admins, why his above comments are inappropriate, and why it's counter-productive to treat Misplaced Pages as a battlefield. Then maybe also introduce him to the first law of holes. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 16:16, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Well well could someone please educated the IP on copyright laws? This is getting tedious as I looked at the "correct" version and can confirm it is a copyvio from imdb and thus exempt from WP:3RR, do we even do second opinions on this edit board? This seems to be a case of I just don't like it Avono (talk) 16:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Avono, you cannot expect any better from a banned user. See Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet_investigations/Beh-nam, this massive pool of proxies is of course annoying/entertaining. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:47, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Then its best just to ignore this. Avono (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not Beh-nam, plain and simple. Stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS, Bladesmulti. As for copyvios, we already established removing them wasn't Bladesmulti's goal, it happened through sheer luck, and there was much more disruption from him than that. A second opinion from an admin very much is needed. Know your place, Avono, and drop the stick already lest you hit yourself with it. 104.41.3.167 (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Beh-nam, how come you don't know the meaning of IMDB spam? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Uninvolved admin. There is no violation as the reverts were removing copyright violations and that is specifically exempt from 3RR. Nothing more to do with this report. -- GB fan 18:05, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
• Note; the IP spouting a bunch of rubbish here has been blocked for their disruption. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Dannywiki1 reported by User:Kashmiri (Result: Blocked)

Page

Hari Parbat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

Dannywiki1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 19:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ""
2. 19:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ""
3. 18:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ""
4. 18:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641116307 by Kashmiri (talk)"
5. 17:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC) ""

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

1. 18:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC) "Only warning: Vandalism. (TW)"

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

Places speedy tags on sourced articles (Hamza Makhdoom, Hari Parbat, Makhdoom) based on POV - which I promptly revert, in violation of 3RR, in order to prevent article deletion, as has unfortunately happened today to Hamza Makhdoom. Likely sock of User:Neyn (along with at least four other socks) - SPI report will be filed tomorrow. Thanks to block for at least a week until SPI process is through, although this SPI account is definitely NOTHERE. Regards, kashmiri 19:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

 Administrator note@Kashmiri: If the article doesn't meet CSD criteria than you have nothing to worry about. The connection with Neyn is not immediately obvious. Let's pretend they're not a sock, but a user acting good-faith. That would mean you are edit warring as well, and have exceeded the 3RR. If you stop, they continue to add CSD tags after they've already been declined, then that's blockable behaviour on their part. I say hold off for a minute until we figure this out. — MusikAnimal 20:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: Thanks. I wish it was as you are saying. Unfortunately, Hamza Makhdoom was deleted today just a few minutes after this user placed the tag. This is a part of something much bigger which I have no time to address at the moment, but look here pls: User_talk:Kashmiri#You appear to be facing something fishy. If you looked through the edit history of the ~8 articles involved, you'd see ~5 socks plus a few editors restoring whatever they damaged. There are a couple of deletion discussion going on as well with these editors involved. Anyhow, SPI will hopefull show things, but for the time being thanks to either block the user or fully protect Hamza Makhdoom, Hari Parbat, Makhdoom, and Sultan-ul-Arifeen. Regards, kashmiri 20:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: If it meets CSD than it probably should be deleted. Unless you are the original author, remove the CSD tag and simply tell the user to bring it to AfD. There you'll get community input, SPAs and socks (which will be confirmed by then) will be ignored, and if it results in a keep then subsequent requests for speedy deletion will be declined. That's the easy way out, I think. I can't block when it's not obvious. The other accounts were involved with AfDs but not CSDs. It's not a concrete connection to me, but maybe it will be to another admin. My recommendation is to back off and let process take care of things naturally. — MusikAnimal 20:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal:. Thanks, converting it into AfD might be a good idea, I will do that. Even though I am not sure this will stop the vandal. Regards, kashmiri 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Kashmiri, you should not be removing CSD tags from articles you have created as you did at Hamza Makhdoom. if you continue to do that you can be blocked. -- GB fan 20:18, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@@GB fan:: I appreciate your warning, but the article was only recreated by me after speedy deletion earlier today. Until then, it was there for many years. I mentioned this above twice. kashmiri 20:34, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

The article as tagged was created by you, therefore you should not be removing any CSD tags left on that article. Just because a previous version was deleted that does not give you the right to remove the speedy deletion tag from this version. I have also told Dannywiki that the tag was not a valid speedy deletion tag for the article. If you feel the article should not have been deleted, you can request the original article be restored by going to the deleting admin. If that does not work you can go to deletion review. -- GB fan 20:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@GB fan: Oh please. I am not sure I need you telling me what I should or should not do. I am curious how you know that I did not contact the deleting admin? Also, the recreated article, even if showing as my work, is - legally - a work of several editors - it was recreated verbatim from a web cache. See, I've spent quite a lot of time doing SPI and, hopefully, am able to tell a GF editor from a sock or SPA. I can also assure you that any behaviour by such accounts which brings serious and intentional damage to Misplaced Pages will be reverted irrespective of revert counter. Hope this clarifies. Regards, kashmiri 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• If this harassment continues Kashmiri, I'm willing to stick my neck out as a non-admin and say that I'm happy to de-CSD anything that has an obviously invalid tag if you bring it to me. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@Lukeno94: Thanks Lukeno, much appreciated :) Let's see if it reappears once new day comes to South Asia. Regards, kashmiri 00:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've left a note for User:Dannywiki1 to come here and explain his changes, which are starting to look peculiar. It seems like Kashmiri has been defending some Sufi-related articles against speedy deletion that have weak sources, though in many cases the people or places described are obviously notable. One way to deal with this would be a series of AfDs. Revert warring the speedy tag isn't a good solution. Since Dannywiki1 seems inexperienced he may not know how to open an AfD. His account was created today, 5 January. It can't be ruled out that he has edited previously under another identity. EdJohnston (talk) 21:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

• Blocked – 48 hours by User:Ronhjones for a 3RR violation at Hari Parbat. From the talk page of Dannywiki1, It appears that this is an inter-Sufi religious dispute. The question is which sage should deserve the title of Sultan ul Arifeen, "King of those who know God." It is hard to imagine a genuine sage who would pay attention to their billing on Misplaced Pages. EdJohnston (talk) 22:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: Thanks for blocking.. I apologise I won't comment on this "inter-Sufi dispute" but I have very limited knowledge of, and rather faint interest in, theology wars, that including Islam. I objected to blank removal of sourced material related to an obviously notable person and place, and reasons behind other editors' reverts became apparent to me much later in the course. Agreeing fully with your view on sages and Misplaced Pages :) Regards, kashmiri 23:33, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

User:AlexTheWhovian reported by User:Logical Fuzz (Result: )

Page

Agent Carter (TV series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported

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

Previous version reverted to

Diffs of the user's reverts

1. 23:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 640946897 by Richiekim (talk) It shouldn't be populated yet until episodes have actually aired in 2015. This should be done with all of those TV shows."
2. 02:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641021383 by Richiekim (talk) Then do it when it premieres. WP:TVUPCOMING"
3. 08:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641057315 by Malachi108 (talk) Read the article history."
4. 08:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641059504 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Marketing material that only you have seen? Sounds like an own-y argument, since no-one else has seen it."
5. 09:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC) "Undid revision 641060002 by Adamstom.97 (talk) Posted a discussion."

Diffs of edit warring / 3RR warning

Diffs of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page

Comments:

5 reverts within 24 hours on one page. Logical Fuzz (talk) 20:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I somehow overlooked the first two reverts listed earlier today when I warned this user and User:Adamstom.97 for getting close to 3RR. If I'd noticed I would have blocked him for 24H, but I'll let others decide now. I'm blaming it on the lack of sleep, and am keeping an eye on the talkpage to see how the discussion goes. Bjelleklang - talk 21:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

If you'd notice, I ceased the edit warring, and took both discussions elsewhere - the first to my own talk page, and the second to the article's talk page. Both discussions have been settled. AlexTheWhovian (talk) 00:54, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Alon12 reported by User:Aergas (Result: Protected)

Page: Mexicans of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Alon12 (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: I told him that if he continues i might request help of administrators, instantly after he dared me to do it

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I oppened a new section on his talk page, asking him to stop removing sourced material, but keeps saying the same things, and as I said above, he dared me to contact the administrators, I think that I won't get anywhere trying to talk to him.

Comments:
Right now I'm having trouble with an edit warrior that continues to remove sourced information, he removed citations to a book, claiming that it was about African Americans, despite that it isn't he then removed it saying that it wasn't a genetic study, but a book "therefore irrelevant"(a peer reviewed book for the matter, but he don't cares) , seeing this, then I added a citation to a genetic study but he continues removing it , saying that is an study about African Americans when the study itself states that: "By comparison, 48 percent who self-reported as Caucasian had more than 95 percent European American ancestry" . When I oppened a discussion in his talk page, instead of discussing he kept saying the same things and insisting that the article is about African Americans when only 37% of the participants in the study were and as I wrote above already, the study clearly talks about the findings in the caucasian participants of the study, after I directly let him know this on his talk page, he moved the goalpost and recurred to the burden of proof fallacy, saying that the cited material does not give enough details, when he has presented zero proof to his own claims: he keeps pushing his edits saying that "the current sources don't say it doesn't support my claims, therefore it does and it's up to you to disprove my baseless claims with sources" when in reality, Misplaced Pages don't admits unsourced assumptions by policy. In the meantime this editor dared me to contact the administrators , so here I am.

It should be noted, that I attempted to contact administrators first regarding this issue, and we go over it in my talk page. He has no answers for actual official genetic studies I post regarding this subject. All he has is shady blog posts in comparison. Aergas appears to be challenged in the english language, I suspect. By the way, he has been making his edit war on the page, for far longer than I have been a member here. Alon12 (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

The official genetic studies you presented aren't related to the issue at all. And don't back you up at all, we are discussing this in your talk page right now, don't bring it here. That's the main problem with you, you are saying things that aren't true, and then link unrelated articles and try to pass them as useful for your posture. And why did you almost copy my userpage? Aergas (talk) 04:30, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Result: Article protected three days. Both editors broke WP:3RR. If this continues, blocks should be used next time. You can use the steps of WP:Dispute resolution to get more opinions. EdJohnston (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring