Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by IIIraute (talk | contribs) at 20:08, 28 January 2012 (→User:IIIraute, self-admitted as IP 89.204.152.55, reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

• 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:Greggy123 reported by User:WilliamJE

Page: List of accidents and incidents involving commercial aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Editor did similar reverts two days ago, with possible sockpuppetry involved.

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

] reported by ] (Result: Malformed)

Page:  Page-multi error: no page detected.
User being reported: User-multi error: no username detected (help).

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: Add HTTP information-evidence
• 2nd revert: removed
• 3rd revert: Add object
• 4th revert: removed-identified as vandalism

24/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473047273

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473162497

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473206141

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User:CharlesDayton&action=edit&redlink=1

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473255302

25/01 http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=ICloud&oldid=473255489

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

• 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. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • I think that is precisely what the user did, replacing for instance  "<!-- Place name of article here -->"  by  "<!-- iCloud -->".  --Lambiam 10:20, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Amadscientist reported by User:Becritical (Result: Not blocked)

Page: Occupy Wall Street (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Amadscientist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

removes "Crime" heading

• 1st revert:
• 2nd revert:removes more...
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: He's been blocked for 3RR before

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: DR/N

Comments:

This is on top of another round of disruption a few days ago, in which he did exactly the same kind of thing. See section Occupy Wall Street discussion I've explained to him many times, but he just doesn't get it. I should note that he seems genuinely to believe that when he makes a change it's up to other people to try to gain consensus for not having the change. He was changing a longstanding section of the article. B——C_ritical 06:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny, but that fourth revert was after you reverted against the consensus of editors, and the others were due to another editor refusing to stick to that consensus. I also dispute your action in making that revert while a dispute is ongoing at DR. You make the statement "another round" like this is an ongoing issue with me, but it appears it is you who are edit warring and not using the talk page OR respecting the consensus process. You also seem to be attempting to find fault at my every turn since your last DR was kicked back to the talk page as deadlocked. Sir, you purposely reverted that page knowing I would revert back as consensus has not determined it to be included and then came to report me here. That goes against the very spirit of the 3RR and Misplaced Pages in general.--Amadscientist (talk) 06:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

With this editor, he misunderstands just about everything he's saying... there was no consensus for change on the article. (Also, the DR/N he mentions was supportive of my position). I didn't want changes to be edit warred in if people objected, so reverted pending discussion, whereupon instead of taking the time to gain consensus on the talk page, Amadscientist reverted back. He claims there was consensus: the "silent consensus" for his edits was broken the first time Racingstripes reverted him. He doesn't understand BRD in spite of my having referred him to it any number of times. B——C_ritical 06:38, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Uhm...there are only two DR's. The one you made is now closed ] and most certainly was not supportive of your position. Deadlocked means deadlocked and the comment left by the mediator was that they were kicking it back to the talk page with two goals, one, that we find actual guidelines that support either position, instead of the essays we were both using and you are still using here, and second if there is no guideline (which is what they suspected) that we take the proper route to generate a discussion. While this is indeed what I stated in the DR you brought and was declined or kicked back, I am not taking that language as being supportive of my position....just that we have other options than taking this immediatly to DR...which you did, not me. I think you misunderstand policy and guidelines and right now you seem a bit obsessed--Amadscientist (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not blocked: Based on the advice of another administrator (User talk:Amadscientist#Occupy Wall Street 2) this user appears to have ceased the edit war and is engaging in dispute resolution. Therefore, a block is not necessary at this time. Amadscientist is advised that no matter how right one may be, edit warring is always considered disruption. --Chris (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Soapfan2013 and User:Musicfreak7676 reported by User:George Ho (Result: Stale)

Page: Cole Thornhart (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Soapfan2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Musicfreak7676 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Do I need to provide reverts: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Cole_Thornhart&action=history. Soapfan2013 was already warned, and there were no further edits afterwards... Still, it was reported before... what do you think? --George Ho (talk) 07:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Stale Salvio 15:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

IP 88.112.89.63 reported by User:RJFF (Result: Stale)

Page: Finnish presidential election, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 88.112.89.63 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Diffs: , , , , , (6 reverts/12 hours)

User talk:88.112.89.63 is full of warnings.

Comments:
The candidate actually is gay, so I wasn't sure if it is also vandalism, or just plain edit warring. --RJFF (talk) 13:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Stale. It was vandalism, by the way. Salvio 15:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Wtshymanski Reported By User:109:153:242:10 (Result: No need to block)

Edit waring in continually restoring material that is totally unsourced - and has been so tagged for several months. No attempt to cite the content has been made in that time Also violation of 3-revert.

1st revert of unsourced: ]

2nd revert of unsourced: ]

3rd revert of unsourced: ]

4th revert of unsourced: ]

As the first revert was 19:40 yesterday that means that they were within 24 hours. A discussion has been made on user's talk page but he seems to believe that the unsourced material is entitled to be there. 109.153.242.10 (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOMERANG. See section below. 109.153.242.10 is currently at 5RR: 1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 4RR, 5RR. Especially troubling is his claim in the edit summaries that the 3RR rule doesn't apply to him. ---Guy Macon (talk) 15:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• No need to block. See below. Salvio 15:28, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:109.153.242.10 reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: No need to block)

Page: Wax thermostatic element (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 109.153.242.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Obsessive section blanking by the anon IP, on the grounds that an old and non-contentious section has been tagged as unref'ed for some months. Whilst correct per strict policy, their hair-trigger re-deletion is making it impossible for anyone (i.e. me) to add the trivially available references to it, without getting trampled in edit conflicts. This is just disruption for disruption's sake, not any sense of collaborative editing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and if anyone would like to print it out and frame it, this is me agreeing with Wtshymanski (talk · contribs). Again. Twice in a week. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:48, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Anon IP is at 5RR by my count (1RR, 2RR, 3RR, 4RR, 5RR). BTW, I agree with Wtshymanski too! The world has gone mad!! (smile) Seriously, though, despite good-natured joking about never agreeing, I have on several occasions left notes on Wtshymanski's talk page complementing him when he makes an especially good edit. He dismisses the sincere compliments as sarcasm, but I know that deep in his heart he loves me... (GROUP HUG) --Guy Macon (talk) 15:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

As was discussed between myself and another editor on an article talk page; the Admin noticeboard and the offending users page. ALL material on Misplaced Pages must be supported by verifiable citations WP:VERIFY. As notified ANY EDITOR is entitled to remove unsourced material. In that altercation, I was trying to revert the patently obvious, but the other user kept deleting it as unsourced, claiming that a citation was required that something existed, when it was clearly visible to almost any computer user. Misplaced Pages admin supported the other editor reafirming his right to delete anything that is unsourced and also notified him that the 3-revert rule did not apply when removing unsourced material (as it is Misplaced Pages policy). The material in question has been tagged for months and no attempt has been made by anyone to provide references that the material is even factual (which it isn't) 109.153.242.10 (talk) 15:13, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• While it's true that, in general, all material on Misplaced Pages should be cited to reliable sources – though there are exceptions, of course: WP:BLUE –, when Andy told you that he was going to provide sources it would have been courteous of you to stop edit warring, allowing him to do just that. In this instance, your behaviour was rather disruptive, honestly. Assuming the edit war has now stopped, however, I've closed this report as no need to block.

  By the way, removing unsourced material is not a 3-rr exemption. Salvio 15:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• There's more to this than first appears. The first edit of this series wasn't a puritanical removal of unsourced material for being unsourced, it was actually an addition] of more unsourced material, pushing an incorrect explanation of the system covered n the article. When Wtshymanski reverted this as incorrect, they responded by blanking the entire section, then clinging blindly to policy to defend this. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Which would make the IP's actions incredibly WP:POINTY. However, blocks are preventative and not punitive; so, if we can stop the ongoing disruption using a simple warning instead of a block, then I'd say all the better. If the IP editor undertakes not to revert any longer, then there's no need for anything else. Salvio 15:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
    • There are also now two specific refs added, from an extremely reliable source, which both support the point of the article as it was, and directly refute the content added by the IP. Not that I shouldn't be installing a catflap right now instead of this pointless argument. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:83.193.200.43 reported by User:Ghmyrtle (Result: 24 h.)

Page: Newport (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 83.193.200.43 (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:

The editor has not made any attempt to seek consensus for his/her view that "East Wales" is more appropriate terminology than "South Wales", to describe the location of the city. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio 16:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Crashwheelx reported by User:Walter Görlitz (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Real Madrid C.F. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Crashwheelx (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: made while I was preparing this report.

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning 2:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: There is an entire section labelled as "Most successful Spanish club" on the article's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
Editor does explain edits in summary and has outlined an accusation against one other editor but doesn't discuss on talk page where a consensus has been achieved. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. Walter, I know situations like this can be frustrating, but I'll also caution you that using Twinkle to revert someone as a vandal during a content dispute is not acceptable either. Seraphimblade 17:50, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Understood. Should have self-reverted as it was a slip (Vandal is immediately under undo) but I was pressed for time and immediately recognized that I would have to file this report which would take even more time. I will be more careful in the future. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

User:IIIraute, self-admitted as IP 89.204.152.55, reported by User:Tenebrae (Result: )

Page: Kat Von D (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: IIIraute (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

Note: User:IIIraute conceded he was IP 89.204.152.55 here

• 1st revert: at 11:48, 26 January 2012
• 2nd revert: as 89.204.152.55 at 15:40, 26 January 2012
• 3rd revert: at 15:46, 26 January 2012
• 4th revert: 10:32, 27 January 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Long string of back-and-forth as shown in history

Comments:
After I made an RfC request at here at 03:40, 27 January 2012, and informed him of the RfC at 03:38, 27 January 2012 here, he continued editing Kat Von D regardless, and he sarcastically copy-pasted the bulk of my 3RR/RfC post on his page — and even though copypasting "Please do not edit the article in question while the RfC is in progress," he then did so himself, resulting in his 4th revert. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

HHe is conflating two separate issues — the name of Von D's father and the name of Von D — despite my repeated attempts to have these separated. Though he began another RfC below mine, about Von D's name, his posted the exact same research findings under both RfCs, despite the former being a separate issue from the latter.

He has exhibited much "I'm not listening" behavior and such uncivil remarks as "...are you able to read?" — which is ironic since not one but two editors believe he is misreading quotes: SEE here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:28, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am not that good in all these technical & bureaucratic issues; the only thing I see is that the user Tenebrae did at least as many reverts and is trying to bully me out of this matter, just because he was proven wrong (as I introduced new US goverment documents as sources). I have no bad intentions - I want to improve the article; Tenebrae is just a bad loser. Looking at all the edits this user made over the last months, Tenebrae seems to think he owns that article, basically reverting every edit done by any other user.--IIIraute (talk) 14:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

The user Tenebrae has now changed the article again, speculating that she might have "changed" her name during adulthood?? There are tree official US government documents and countless secondary sources, interviews, etc. that state her name as "Katherine von Drachenberg", but Tenebrae is ignoring all of this, always referring to her websites bio that was written by a friend where she gives her father's name as "Rene Drachenberg". Please have a look at the following documents: http://tdr.uspto.gov/search.action?sn=85049892# & http://tdr.uspto.gov/jsp/DocumentViewPage.jsp?85049892/APP20100531102050/Application/4/27-May-2010/sn/false#p=1 (page 1, 3 & 4).--IIIraute (talk) 15:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Admins do not adjudicate content dispute, so I cannot tell who's right. I can, however, tell that you're both warring – after all, any appearance of gaming the system by reverting a fourth time just outside the 24-hour slot is likely to be treated as a 3RR violation –. We now have three choices: you can both be blocked, the article can be protected or a more civilised manner to solve this dispute can be tried. My advice to you both would be to follow WP:DR... But I'm ready to dish out blocks, if this does not work. Salvio 15:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I am wholeheartedly all for dispute resolution, and I will investigate options and ask him in good faith. He has, however, been uncivil, nasty and sarcastic, so I'm hesitant to engage with him to ask, and open myself up to further abuse. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Done. I have place a polite request with him at his talk page (Diff here).

maybe that helps to prove her real name: https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B6ToGLIx6PHUYTE0ZDcwODgtMjY1OC00MGIzLWJjYmEtYjUyZDM4NWY4MmFl&hl=en_US (note: an official name change due to marriage, divorce or court order needs to be documented in the passport).--IIIraute (talk) 15:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

That is simply not true, and I don't appreciate your trying to bluff about legal matters you know nothing about. You do not need a court order or anything else to have a different name on your passport than you were born with. Both my wife and I have have different names on our own passports, so the fact you would go so far as to make a false claim about passports and the law shows how little you're committed to truth and accuracy. That is amazing to me that someone would be so overemotionally caught up in this that they would spew a falsehood this way. No one is disputing her adult name. But her father's name, according to Kat herself, has no "von," and unless you're the E-Trade baby, perhaps, a newborn cannot go to court and petition for a name change.

In any event, I took the admin's advice about dispute resolution. Why don't we let everyone see the kind of calm, rational you are? This is from IIIraute's talk page, here:

Would you be open to following the admin's advice on our 3RR page and pursuing with me dispute resolution at the Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution noticeboard? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

As you are not really interested in improving the article, do whatever you think you have to do - although to prevent further damage, maybe it would be better if both our accounts got blocked, as IMHO your edits are ignorant, manipulative, contraproductive and only serve the support of your dogmatic, self-opinionated POV.--IIIraute (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

The admin put the same advice on you! You seem to forget that.--IIIraute (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and I politely asked if you be willing to enter dispute resolution. You verbally abused with insults and name-calling me in your response. Let us make one thing clear: You do not have the right to verbally abuse and insult other people. Period. You need to stop. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You did everything possible to manipulate the given fact that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg", persisting that her name was "Drachenberg" only. You discredited all secondary sources, interviews, the articles of major newspapersa such as the NYpost, the LaTimes, Spiegel, The DailyMail, broadcasters like ABC, CBS, etc. ,published literature, etc.etc.I had to first bring official US government documents as well as a copy of her passport until you would accept that her name is "Katherine von Drachenberg".

Now, you are trying to do the same about her name of birth, speculating that she must have changed her name during adulthood, putting all your emphasis into the bio on her website that says that her father is "Rene Drachenberg" and - although it does not once - in the whole bio - directly say that her name is "Drachenberg" only, you persist on that one source, that isn't really one. You are the one making that speculative connection, just because it says that her father is called "Rene Drachenberg", so it also must be her name of birth. Again, you discredit all other sources - especially her published autobiography with a circulation of many thousand copies in which she gives both of her grandparents - as well as her own name as "von Drachenberg". In a second book written by her both, her brothers and her sisters name are given as "von Drachenberg". Redarding to your claim, her brother and sister also must have changed their names during adulthood. Again, for all those claims, you do not have a sigle source. Also, you discredit again several sources, such as from major newspapers and magazines that say that she was "born" von Drachenberg. So what's the point?--IIIraute (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

IIIraute, I would like to remind you that it is Misplaced Pages policy to assume good faith. Comments like "you are not really interested in improving the article" will not help to resolve this dispute. Please take a more civil tone. --Chris (talk) 19:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I wish to make a point of clarification to IIIraute. I have not, in fact, discredited any of the published sources. None of them say her birth name was "von Drachenberg". They only say that is her adult name. The one thing we know unequivocally is that she herself says her father's name is simply "Drachenberg," a fact you seem unwilling to accept. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

And about that "passport image": That image is in a Google doc, so it's not from a public source on the Internet. Aside from being disallowed under the policy of no original research, you — whom I've already caught in a falsehood about passport laws — are suggesting that you, personally, in this age of identity theft, somehow got Kat Von D to open up her passport for you to splash on the web. Really.

I think any objective observer would say that this is highly unlikely. So that leaves, I think, three options: You Photoshopped a fake passport; you surreptitiously shot her open passport at an airport and have posted her private information for all to see; or you're a publicist or someone else with a WP:COI interest in polishing a mythology, even though Kat herself, from the lack of "von Drachenberg" in her own bio, on her own website, seems more interested in respecting her father's choice. Which is it? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:41, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't catch me in anything; what a nonsense. Lots of the newspaper & broadcasting sources say literally "born" von Drachenberg! You say her fathers name was "Drachenberg"; I say both of her grandparents and all of her siblings are named "von Drachenberg" - that' what she writes in her published autobiography; and don't bring your "that's how it is done" in the USA, because you are speculating about the status of her family; apart from that she was NOT born in the USA but in Mexico, she was not an american citizen to the age of 5.

I did show you several official US goverment sources that prove her name. Her books have several parts with the name "von Drachenberg" and everyone is free to have a look for themselves. Kat von D has published the passport herself on her facebook page (where she also calls herself "von Drachenberg"). Here is another source for her passport: http://data.whicdn.com/images/18758706/1320433715094_f_thumb.jpg --IIIraute (talk) 20:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Mewulwe reported by User:Darkness Shines (Result: A week)

Page: Ansumane Mané (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Page: People's Republic of Bulgaria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Mewulwe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: Ansumane Mané
• 1st revert: People's Republic of Bulgaria

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

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

Comments:

This user just came off a 72 hour block for editwarring across multiple articles. He has now picked up were he left off. On Ansumane Mané he has now reverted nine times three other editors additions of academic sources based on his presumption that they must have copied wikipedia, however he has no actual evidence of this. On People's Republic of Bulgaria he is inserting WP:OR, the sources used do not support his addition. This is a highly disruptive user and it is high time he was stopped. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• • Blocked – for a period of a week Salvio 17:04, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:InformaticsMD reported by User:SarekOfVulcan (Result: 24 hours)

Page: Electronic health record (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: InformaticsMD (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: 19:14, 26 January 2012‎

• 1st revert: 00:09, 27 January 2012‎ (IP)
• 2nd revert: 12:01, 27 January 2012‎ (IP)
• 3rd revert: 17:12, 27 January 2012
• 4th revert: 17:22, 27 January 2012

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: 17:14, 27 January 2012

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: I only reverted once - per WP:BRD, they should have gone to the talk page to get consensus for their edits at that point.

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. --Chris (talk) 17:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:NYyankees51 reported by AV3000 (talk) (Result: One week)

Page: Santorum controversy regarding homosexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: NYyankees51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

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

Original removal:

1. 15:14, 25 January 2012 (edit summary: "unrelated; off topic")
2. 15:17, 25 January 2012 (edit summary: "also unrelated, off topic")

Reverts:

1. 20:12, 25 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473188967 by L3lackEyedAngels (talk) see talk")
2. 04:01, 27 January 2012 (edit summary: "per WP:COATRACK, this article cannot be a forum for criticizing all of Santorum's comments on homosexuality; this article is specifically about the 2003 issue. Off-topic, coatrack. See talk.")
3. 14:18, 27 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473477123 by Nomoskedasticity (talk) per WP:COATRACK, discuss on talk before restoring")
4. 15:26, 27 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473519584 by Dominus Vobisdu (talk) No, it's not pertinent. This is not a dumping ground for criticisms of his views. Discuss on talk.")

• Diff of warning: here

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning:

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:
Editor has a long history of edit warring, warnings, and blocks, including a current topic ban, demonstrating unwillingness to obtain consensus.

Per WP:3RR, "Even without a 3RR violation, an administrator may still act if they believe a user's behavior constitutes edit warring, and any user may report edit-warring with or without 3RR being breached." In this instance, the editor has removed material five times in two days, which suggests that a block or additional topic ban is warranted.

—AV3000 (talk) 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked – for a period of one week for edit warring. This is not the user's first EW block; they should know better by now. --Chris (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Pity... they were good-faith BLP reverts, if misguided... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, good-faith edit warring is still edit warring. I don't judge the editor's intentions as malicious, but there is a repeating behavior problem. --Chris (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Neilwoodcock reported by User:Tbhotch (Result: A day)

Page: Heavy metal music (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Neilwoodcock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: diff preferred, link permitted

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: link

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: None

Comments:

• Blocked – for a period of a day Salvio 19:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Screwball23 reported by Metallurgist (talk) (Result: )

Page: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User being reported: Screwball23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Time reported: 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 14:48, 21 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Time table of primaries and caucuses */")
2. 04:39, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Primary schedule */ see talk page")
3. 06:26, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "Undid revision 473640794 by Metallurgist (talk) - please contribute your rationale for your editing behavior on the talk page")

• Diff of warning: here

• Dispute on talk page

User has been ignoring Misplaced Pages conventions concerning consensus even after informed about it and has been removing large portions of the article unilaterally, despite repeated complaints and disagreements. There are 4 5 users in favor of the content in question remaining in the article, while 2 are opposed. User has not even allowed time for discussion, the first time only waiting nine minutes before removing content. User as repeatedly been involved in edit wars, has complete disregard for the concept of consensus, has issued personal attacks, been curt/rude and dismissive of/condescending towards other opinions, and has been blocked repeatedly:

User may be sockpuppeting as 68.39.100.32. User is part of Meetup NYC and anon is located in Middletown, New Jersey. —Metallurgist (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

If I may have input, I am located 'near' Middletown NJ, but I am NOT that user. Can't you identify his IP address? (I am assuming I am that user that you pointed out).68.39.100.32 (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I am saying this in order for you to find evidence that I am not that user. Metals logic is simply because the reported user and I agree on an issue. When has that become a means to suspect everyone of fraud or whatever? The actions that the reported user has taken is evidence enough to take action against him/her. I am by no means defending their actions; rather just questioning the motive to now suspect me of having multiple accounts to edit the article. Besides me not having an account, I can't see anyway to prove this then to check the reported users ip address and report that process here so I and others can see how you recieved it.68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:68.174.108.113 reported by User:Sitush (Result: 24 h)

Page: Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: 68.174.108.113 (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: , and User_talk:Sitush#Links_and_sources.

Comments:
Also warring at Nasim Yousaf, where the AfD tag has been pulled down twice. - Sitush (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• I am tending to the opinion that the IP may be connected in some way to Nasim Yousaf, who is the focus of their concerns at Inayatullah Khan Mashriqi. - Sitush (talk) 08:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Blocked 24 hours by User:Wifione - Sitush (talk) 08:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
• Blocked – for a period of 24 hours. AGF on the connection suspicion unless you have concrete evidence. Be careful of outing issues. Do not reveal information here, even if you (and I) believe it is public. Wifione 09:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:OtiliaC reported by User:JFHJr (Result: Article semi-protected)

Page: Paul-Philippe Hohenzollern (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: OtiliaC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); 145.116.225.193 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Note: This user owned the IP here

Previous version reverted to: here

• 1st revert: 16:52, 27 January 2012
• 2nd revert: 19:43, 27 January 2012
• 3rd revert: 20:06, 27 January 2012
• 4th revert: 10:09, 28 January 2012
• 5th revert: 10:49, 28 January 2012 (edit summary contains what comes close to a legal threat).

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: here and here

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Another user pointing to policy here and here Please watch or act as appropriate.

Comments:

• Page protected And warning issued with regard to the legal threat. Salvio 11:15, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jamesp815 reported by User:DoriSmith (Result: Stale)

Page: C-Murder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Jamesp815 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to: his initial edit

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

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: diff

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: N/A; several editors have reverted this user.

Comments:

• Stale Salvio 14:27, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:Breadbasket (Result: Page protected)

Page: Alexander Montagu, 13th Duke of Manchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=473695850 (28 January) 1 revert.
• 2nd revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=473696936 (28 January) 1 revert.
• 3rd revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Alexander_Montagu,_13th_Duke_of_Manchester&oldid=473698361 (28 January) 3 reverts.
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: User_talk:Yopie#3RR_Warning:_Alexander_Montagu.2C_13th_Duke_of_Manchester

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page:

Comments:

What makes this case worse than ordinary 3RR cases, is that this is a BLP article. The rules state explicitly that challenged (poorly sourced, biassed, context-lacking, etc.) content shall be ‘immediately removed’.

 — Breadbasket 18:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Page protected – there appears to be a content dispute on the page. Consider dispute resolution. I'm not sure HOW MANY TIMES I have to point you in the direction of dispute resolution, but your hands are not clean in this edit-war either. I have full protected the page for 2 weeks. Follow the processes and advice you have been provided (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Yopie reported by User:Breadbasket (Result: No violation )

Page: False titles of nobility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
User being reported: Yopie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous version reverted to:

• 1st revert: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=False_titles_of_nobility&oldid=473698067 (28 January)
• 2nd revert:
• 3rd revert:
• 4th revert:

Diff of edit warring / 3RR warning: https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=User_talk:Yopie&oldid=471872070

Diff of attempt to resolve dispute on article talk page: Talk:False titles of nobility

Comments:

• No violation - that said, the editor is EW on a bunch of pages (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

User:ATWA WOLF reported by Sparthorse (talk) (Result: blocked, 31 hours)

Page: Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Time reported: 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

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

1. 17:39, 26 January 2012 (edit summary: "There are a few things regarding Charles Manson's involvment in the Tate/Labianca murders which can be deemed as debatable and I felt it necessary to reflect an alternate point of view.")
2. 18:14, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "I made necessary edits to reflect a more factual view of the Manson case.")
3. 18:16, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "/* Background */ I made necessary edits to reflect a more factual view of the Manson case.")
4. 18:25, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "This page was in need of necessary changes!")
5. 18:34, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "I made necessary edits to this page to reflect facts not mentioned previously.")
6. 19:16, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "I made necessary changes to reflect facts not mentioned here previously.")
7. 19:26, 28 January 2012 (edit summary: "Necessary edits were made to reflect facts not previously mentioned.")

• Diff of warning: here

—Sparthorse (talk) 19:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Blocked – for a period of 31 hours, especially since the user went on to add the controversial text again, this time flagging it as a minor edit. That showed enough intent to me that a block was clearly warranted. —C.Fred (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages noticeboards
• Misplaced Pages edit warring